( 1 ) THESE two appeals are directed against a common judgment and award of learned Commissioner for Workmens Compensation ("commissioner" for short, hereinafter) at Rajkot, in W. C. (F) Applications Nos. 4 and 5 of 1978. The aforesaid two applications for compensation under the provisions of the Workmens Compensation Act, 1923 ("act" for short, hereinafter), came to be disposed of, on 19-1-1980.

( 2 ) THE appellant, in both the appeals, is the original opponent No. 3, in both the W. C. (F) Applications. In First Appeal No. 1386 of 1980, original opponent No. 3 in W. C. (F) Application No. 5 of 1978 is the appellant, respondents Nos. 1 and 2 are the original applicants, respondents Nos. 3, 4 and 5 are the original opponents Nos. 1, 2 and 4 and respondents Nos. 5 to 10 are the original opponents Nos. 5 to 10, as such, who are not necessary parties in the present appeal.

( 3 ) IN First Appeal No. 1369 of 1980, the appellant is the original opponent no. 3 in W. C. (F) Application No. 4 of 1978, respondents Nos. 1 and 2 are the original applicants and respondents Nos. 3, 4 and 5 are the original opponents nos. 1, 2 and 4.

( 4 ) FOR the sake of convenience and brevity, the parties are hereinafter addressed to as the original applicants and opponents as stated hereinbefore.

( 5 ) THE material facts giving birth to the present appeals, may be stated, at the outset so as to appreciate the merits and challenge against them. The accident in question occurred on 26-7-1977, at about 10-30 a. m. The Motor truck No. GTB 5426, owned by the original opponent No. 3. Jayantilal and company, and driven by deceased Garasia Udesinh was proceeding from dhrangadhra to Rajkot. On that day, there was a collision between the said truck with another on-coming truck, bearing No. GTS 5494. On account of the said accident, the driver, Garasia Udesinh, sustained serious injuries and succumbed to the same on the same day. Deceased Udesinh was working as a driver with original opponent No. 3, who is appellant in both the appeals. The deceased was earning Rs. 250. 00 per month plus other allowances, as a driver. The dependents of the deceased workman, Garasia Udesinh, filed the application for compensation being W. C. (F) Application No. 4 of 1978 before the learned commissioner, at Rajkot by invoking the aids of the provisions of Sec. 3 of the Act. Original applicant No. 1 was the widow of the deceased and original applicant No. 2 was the minor daughter of the applicant No. 1. They claimed an amount of Rs. 69,000. 00 by way of compensation for the, unfortunate accidental demise of their bread winner, together with penalty, interest and costs, under the Act.

( 6 ) IT may be mentioned at this stage that the application for compensation under Sec. 3 of the Act was also filed by seven applicants being W. C. (F) application No. 5 of 1978. One Ranjanba Akhubha, also claimed to be widow of the deceased Garasia Udesinh. She also filed the said application on behalf of her four minor children. The parents of the deceased were also joined in the said application. Thus, original applicant No. 6. Bhagwanji Naranji and original applicant No. 7, Jivuba Maghabhai, in W. C. (F) Application No. 5 of 1978 were the parents of the deceased. Initially, both the claim applications were filed against the original opponents Nos. 1 and 2. However, in view of the dispute raised by the original opponents Nos. 1 and 2, original opponents nos. 3 and 4 were impleaded in both the application being second truck party and the insurer of the said truck. It appears that the original opponents Nos. 1 and 2 in both the claim applications raised the contention that the other truck party and the insurer were responsible. Because of that, owner of both the trucks and insurer of both the vehicles came to be impleaded. Thus, there were four opponents is each application.

( 7 ) OPPONENTS appeared and resisted both the claim applications.

( 8 ) IN view of the contentions raised by the pa