ORDER 1. These six miscellaneous appeals under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 have been preferred against the common impugned judgment and award dated 25.02.2019 passed by the Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, No.2, Kota (for short 'the Tribunal'), whereby the learned Tribunal allowed the Claim Petition No.54/2015titled as Balmukund Nagar & Others Vs. Ismile Shah & Others, filed by the claimants therein and awarded Rs.27,66,785/- as compensation in their favour and while allowing the Claim Petition No.100/2015 titled as Janki Lal Nagar & another Vs. Ismile Shah & Others and Claim Petition No.53/2015 titled as Balmukund Nagar & Others Vs. Ismile Shah & Others, learned Tribunal awarded a sum of compensation to the tune of Rs.8,04,446/- and Rs.4,65,000/- respectively to the claimants therein. 2. Since, these six appeals arise out of the common impugned judgment and award, they are being decided together by this common order. 3. In short, the relevant facts of the present case are that on 01.01.2015 at about 08:00 P.M., Balmukund alongwith his wife Rukmani Nagar, son Yatharth @ Aman and one Lokesh Nagar were going in an Alto Car bearing registration No.RJ-20-CB-06887 from Village Jhalri to Kota. At about 08:30 P.M., the Car reached near the Babool-ki-Radi, at that time, one motorcycle was also running in front of the Car and when its driver tried to stop the motorcycle, Car driver had to stop his vehicle by using sudden breaks. At that moment, a roadways bus bearing registration No.RJ-28-PA-0170, which was being driven rashly and negligently by its driver, hit the Car from the behind, due to which Car overturned and as a result of which Rukmani, Yatharth @ Aman and Lokesh died and Balmukund, driver of the Car suffered grievous injuries. The claimants preferred aforesaid claim petitions under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming compensation for the death of Rukmani, Yatharth @ Aman and Lokesh and for the injuries sustained by injured Balmukund, which were allowed by the learned Tribunal and compensation, as aforesaid has been awarded in their favour. 4. The learned Tribunal, after hearing all the parties, vide its impugned judgment and award dated 25.02.2019, partly allowed the Claim Petitions filed by the claimants and awarded compensation, as aforesaid in their favour. 5. 4. The learned Tribunal, after hearing all the parties, vide its impugned judgment and award dated 25.02.2019, partly allowed the Claim Petitions filed by the claimants and awarded compensation, as aforesaid in their favour. 5. Being dissatisfied by the impugned judgment and award, S.B. CM.A. Nos.1718/2019, 1719/2019 & 1738/2019 have been preferred by the appellant-RSRTC challenging the impugned judgment and award passed by the Tribunal for reducing the award amount and on the other-hand, S.B. C.M.A. Nos.2837/2019, 3672/2019 & 3674/2019 have been filed by the claimants for enhancement of compensation amount. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant-RSRTC submits that the learned Tribunal has committed serious error in holding that the accident in question, occurred due to negligence of the driver of the appellant-Corporation. Counsel further submits that AW-3 Balmukund in his deposition admitted that the motorcycle driver suddenly applied the breaks of his vehicle due to which the Car overturned and untoward incident happened. Counsel also submits that AW-2 Rameshwar, who witnessed the incident, has admitted that he was going-on the motorcycle behind the bus and as such he cannot say what happened as to whether the driver of the motorcycle applied the breaks or not. Counsel contends that neither Investigating Officer nor any independent witness has been examined by the claimants, thus, it is a case of no evidence. Counsel further contends that it is a case of head-on collision and the learned tribunal, without considering the aspect of contributory/composite negligence, has held in an arbitrary manner that the driver of the bus was solely negligent. Lastly, counsel contends that the learned Tribunal has awarded compensation on higher side without any factual foundation and, thus, the impugned judgment and award deserves to be quashed and set aside and the amount awarded may be reduced adequately. 7. On the other-hand, the learned counsel appearing for the claimants, has submitted that the amount of compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal is abysmally low. The learned Tribunal has committed an error in awarding total compensation in favour of the claimants, which is on lower side and the same is liable to be enhanced suitably. 8. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the impugned judgment and award passed by the learned Tribunal as well as the material made available on record. 9. The learned Tribunal has committed an error in awarding total compensation in favour of the claimants, which is on lower side and the same is liable to be enhanced suitably. 8. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the impugned judgment and award passed by the learned Tribunal as well as the material made available on record. 9. The learned Tribunal, while dealing with the evidence available on record, has taken into consideration all the aspects of matter viz., negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle, monetary loss to the claimants on account of death of Rukmani Nagar, Yatharth @ Aman and Lokesh and has rightly awarded total Rs.27,66,785/-, Rs.8,04,446/- and Rs.4,65,000/- respectively as compensation in favour of the claimants and against the non-claimants and appellant-RSRTC, which is just and proper. 10. I am also in agreement with the findings arrived at by the learned Tribunal while passing the impugned judgment and award and there is no reason to take a different view already taken by the learned Tribunal. 11. For the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any force in the appeals filed by the appellant-RSRTC against the impugned judgment and award passed by the learned Tribunal as also the appeals filed by the claimants for enhancement of amount, as they, being bereft of any merit, are hereby dismissed. 12. Consequent upon the dismissal of the appeals, all pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of accordingly. 13. Let a copy of this order be placed in connected appeals.