THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO C.R.P.Nos.764, 766, 768 & 769 of 2007 COMMON ORDER: Since the issue involved in all these revision petitions is one and the same, they are heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. The National Insurance Company filed these revisions petitions assailing the orders passed by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (IV Additional District Judge), Guntur in M.V.O.P.Nos.773, 774, 777 and 812 of 2002, dated 21.07.2006, 24.07.2006, 24.07.2006 and 25.07.2006 respectively. Few facts, which are necessary for disposal of these cases, are that on 04.07.2002 the respondents along with their relatives hired a mini lorry bearing No.ATG 81, which is insured with the petitioner herein, to take the dead body of their relative by name Megavath China Naik, to his native place Lalpuram for cremation; that at that time number of people were travelling in the said mini lorry and when the said lorry reached near Lingamguntla Village, the driver of the said lorry drove it in a rash and negligent manner, as a result of which, the lorry turned turtle, resulting the death of two persons and injuries to several persons including the respondents herein; that based on a report given by one Jarapala Mothi Bai, a case in Crime No.90 of 2002 was registered against the driver and owner of the said mini lorry for the offences punishable under Sections 337 and 304 I.P.C, and thereafter, the injured-respondents herein filed the above M.V.O.Ps under Sections 140, 141, 163-A and 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming compensation. The petitioner-Insurance Company contested the petitions inter alia on various grounds. Thereafter, trial was conducted in all the petitions, where both sides have adduced evidence both oral and documentary. The Court below, having considered the said evidence and the material available on record, came to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the mini lorry, and accordingly awarded certain amounts towards compensation to the respondents-injured. Though the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner- Insurance Company contended that the petitioner is not liable to pay any compensation to the respondents-injured and that the respondents-injured are entitled to recover the awarded compensation amount from the owner of the offending vehicle, having regard to the vital accident, and especially the amounts awarded by the Court below are very meagre, I do not find any justification to interfere with the impugned orders. The Civil Revision Petitions are accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. B.PRAKASH RAO, J Date: 24.06.2010 va