ORDER : GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J. 1.Both these appeals arise out of the common judgment and award of compensation in Claim Case No. 33/2007, whereby and whereunder a compensation has been awarded under Section 166 of the M.V. Act for the death of Kameshwar Rai in a motor vehicle accident while he was travelling in Mahendra Sawari vehicle bearing registration no. JH-12A-6430. 2. M.A. No. 358 of 2013 has been preferred by the owner-cum-driver of Mahendra Sawari vehicle bearing registration no. JH-12A-6430 and is aggrieved by order by which right to recovery has been granted to the Insurance-Company against the appellant (owner of the vehicle). M.A. No. 239 of 2013 has been filed by the Oriental Insurance Company, the insurer of the Mahendra Sawari vehicle bearing registration no. JH-12A-6430 against the finding of composite negligence and liability being fixed to the extent of 50% on it. Since the issue involved in both these appeals are interrelated, therefore, these appeals will be heard together and disposed of by the common order. 3. It is submitted by the learned counsel, Mr. Vishal Kr. Tiwary, appearing on behalf of the appellant in M.A. No. 358 of 2013 that the more than 6-7 persons died and separate claim cases were filed in all of which the right to recovery was granted. 4. This Court in M.A. No. 201 of 2010 along with M.A. No. 212 of 2010 and M.A. No. 09 of 2011 held that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving by the Mahendra Sawari vehicle bearing registration no. JH-12A-6430 and thereby absolved the owner and its insurer of the truck from any liability. It was also held that the there was no breach of terms and conditions of the insurance policy by the owner of the offending vehicle, and consequently the order of pay and recover from the owner of the vehicle was set aside. 5. This is a case with the only difference that claim of the deceased husband has been allowed in favour Masomat Yashoda namely Kameshwar Rai and the liability was fixed on the Insurance-Company with a right to recovery in favour of the Insurance-Company against the owner. M.A. No. 239 of 2013 has been preferred by the insurer of the Mahendra Sawari vehicle bearing registration no. JH-12A-6430 by which 50% liability has been fixed on it as composite negligence. 6. Heard both sides. 7. M.A. No. 239 of 2013 has been preferred by the insurer of the Mahendra Sawari vehicle bearing registration no. JH-12A-6430 by which 50% liability has been fixed on it as composite negligence. 6. Heard both sides. 7. The point for determination is basically with regard to the following questions in the present appeal: I. Whether it was a case of composite negligence caused by the driver of the truck bearing registration no. HR 38D 7766 and the driver of Mahendra Sawari vehicle bearing registration no. JH-12A-6430? II. Whether the right to recovery allowed in favour of both the Insurance- Company against the owner of both the vehicles are sustainable or not? 8. As discussed above these questions have already been answered in M.A. No. 201 of 2010 and its analogous cases, and that there is no other question of fact or law involved in the present appeals as distinguishable from the earlier appeals. Under the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the findings rendered in the earlier case are reiterated with respect to the above points for determination and is, accordingly, answered as below. I. The accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the Mahendra Sawari vehicle bearing registration no. JH-12A-6430 by its driver Umesh Kumar Rai @ Umesh Prasad Rai, the said vehicle was under insurance cover of the Oriental Insurance Company at the relevant time of accident. The finding of the Tribunal of composite negligence is, therefore, not sustainable and is, accordingly, set aside. II. Further, a finding so far as right to recovery has been awarded to the Insurance-Company against the owner of the vehicle being Umesh Kumar Rai @ Umesh Prasad Rai is also not sustainable and set aside. 9. In view of the above findings, M.A. No. 358 of 2013 is allowed and M.A. No. 239 of 2013 stands dismissed. Pending I.A., if any, stands disposed of. Statutory amount deposited at the time of preferring in both the Misc. Appeals be returned to the concerned appellants.