JUDGMENT : Bhuwan Goyal, J. 1. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that service of notice upon respondent No. 12 may be dispensed with. 2. In view of the statement made by learned counsel for the appellant, service of notice upon respondent No. 12 is dispensed with at the risk and cost of the appellant. Service is, therefore, complete. 3. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the appeal is heard finally. 4. The present appeal has been preferred by the appellant – National Insurance Company against the Judgment and Award dated 03.08.2009 passed by the Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Baran in Claim Case No. 136/2006 vide which the claim petition filed by the respondent Nos. 1 to 7-claimants was partly allowed and a sum of Rs.3,33,900/- along with interest @ 7.5% per annum was awarded as compensation in favour of the respondent Nos. 1 to 7-claimants and against the appellant-non-claimant and the respondent Nos. 8 to 11-non-claimants jointly and severally. 5. The facts of the case in short are that the respondent Nos. 1 to 7-claimants filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation on account of death of the deceased Bilkis alias Guddiya in a vehicular accident, against the appellant-non-claimant and respondent Nos. 8 to 12-non-claimants before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Baran, wherein it was inter alia alleged that on 21.10.2005 in the evening at 7.30 p.m., Bilkis alias Guddiya Bai along with her daughter, after purchasing bangles, was coming from Baran in Jeep No. RJ-20-T-1021, then driver of the truck No. RJ-28-G-0618 plying it rashly and negligently hit the jeep, as a result, jeep turned down and Bilkis alias Guddiya Bai got fracture in her hand, which was amputated and her hip bone was also fractured and she succumbed to injuries while undergoing treatment. An F.I.R. was got registered with regard to said accident. The Tribunal after framing issues, evaluating the evidence available on record and hearing learned counsel for the parties, partly allowed the claim petition awarding a total sum of 3,33,900/- as compensation under various heads in favour of the respondent Nos. 1 to 7-claimants with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing claim petition i.e. 01.05.2006 till realization of the compensation amount. Aggrieved, present misc. appeal has been filed by the appellant - Insurance Company of the jeep. 6. 1 to 7-claimants with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing claim petition i.e. 01.05.2006 till realization of the compensation amount. Aggrieved, present misc. appeal has been filed by the appellant - Insurance Company of the jeep. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant- National Insurance Company Limited has submitted that from the F.I.R., site plan and the statement of eye-witness, it has been established that accident happened due to rash and negligence of truck driver i.e. respondent No. 8 but despite that learned tribunal has wrongly held both vehicles as liable for the accident. Except that no other argument has been raised. On these premises, learned counsel for the appellant prays that this appeal may be allowed and impugned award may be quashed and set aside. 8. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 to 7/ claimants have supported the award passed by the learned tribunal and submits that the learned tribunal after appreciating entire evidence on record, has rightly passed the award impugned herein, which does not call for any interference. 9. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 10 – New India Assurance Company Limited has submitted that from the statement of A.W. 2 – Rubeena, it reveals that jeep was plying at high speed. accident took place due to rash and negligence of jeep driver. He has further submitted that no evidence has been adduced by the appellant to prove that there was no negligence of jeep driver in the accident. He has further submitted that the learned tribunal after appreciating entire material has rightly passed impugned award and therefore, he prays that appeal of the appellant may be dismissed. 10. I have considered the submissions made at the Bar and gone through the judgment and award impugned dated 03.08.2009 as well as record of the case. 11. From perusal of the record, it reveals that after conclusion of investigation, police has submitted charge-sheet against drivers of both the vehicles and same has not been challenged before any court. Moreover, it was specifically mentioned in the F.I.R. that drivers of both the vehicles were negligent and were driving the vehicles at high speed. As per site plan, there was turn on the road and accident took place at around 7.30 p.m. There was no headlight in the jeep on one side. Moreover, it was specifically mentioned in the F.I.R. that drivers of both the vehicles were negligent and were driving the vehicles at high speed. As per site plan, there was turn on the road and accident took place at around 7.30 p.m. There was no headlight in the jeep on one side. A.W. 2 - Rubeena in her statement has admitted that jeep was plying at high speed. There was no headlight in the jeep on one side and that accident took place due to rash and negligence of jeep driver. Except N.A.W. 2 - C.L. Meena, who has deposed about conditions of the policy, no other oral evidence including eye-witness has been produced by the appellant-insurance company. N.A.W. 1 - Chhitarlal, who was driver of the truck in question, has specifically stated that there was negligence of jeep driver in the accident. In the considered opinion of this Court, when there was turn on the road, it was expected from the jeep driver also to keep vigilant but from the evidence on record, it reveals that accident in both the vehicles took place from front side as both vehicles were coming from opposite direction and as per the statement of A.W. 2 – Rubeena, jeep driver was also plying the jeep at high speed. Thus, it cannot be said that there was no negligence on the part of jeep driver in the accident. The learned tribunal also after evaluating entire evidence on record has rightly decided Issue Nos. 1 and 2 against the non-claimants and in favour of the claimants, in which no illegality can be said to be committed warranting interference of this Court. 12. In view of the above, present appeal being devoid of any merit is hereby dismissed. 13. All pending applications, if any, also stand dismissed. 14. A copy of this order along with record be sent to the tribunal forthwith.