( 1 ) THESE 9 First Appeals Nos. 719 of 1979 to 727 of 1979 under sec. 54 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 arise out of the common judgment and Awards delivered by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Panchmahals at Godhra, in Motor Accident Claims Petitions Nos. 148, 167, 267, 272, 300, 301, 305, 315 and 314 all of 1978 respectively.

( 2 ) THE 27 Special Civil Application Nos. 1441, 1442, 1443, 1444, 1445, 1446, 1447, 1448, 1449, 1450, 1451, 1452, 1453, 1454, 1455, 1456, 1457, 1458, 1459, 1460, 1461, 1462, 1463, 1464, 1465, 1466, and 1467 all of 1979 also have been filed by the same appellants against the same National Insurance company and the claimants in Motor Accident Claim Petitions Nos. 265, 266, 270, 273, 274, 278, 299, 302, 303, 304, 306, 309, 310, 321, 322, 323, 325, 326, 311, 312, 313, 314, 316, 317, 318, 319 and 320 all of 1978 respectively claimants.

( 3 ) AS all the Motor Accident Claim Petitions filed by the differents claimants for compensation in respect of the death of two persons Makna Siska and Magan chhobla and injuries caused to the claimants in the same motor accident were consolidated, and decided by a common judgment by the learned Motor Accident claims Tribunal on 28-2-1977, all the appeals and the Special Civil Application challenging the dismissal of the claim against the National Insurance Company are now being decided by this common judgment.

( 4 ) AS no appeal lies against any Award of the Claims Tribunal, as per subsec. (2) of Sec. 110d of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, if the amount in dispute in the appeal is less than Rs. 2,000. 00, the judgment in Motor Accident Claim petitions Nos. 267 of 1978 to 320 of 1978, in which the Tribunal awarded less than Rs. 2,000. 00 has been challenged by filing Special Civil Application purporting to be under Art. 226, but, virtually under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India.

( 5 ) IN all the appeals the appellants are the driver, the owner and the hirer of the motor vehicle and the common respondent No. 1 is the Insurance Company which had insured the motor vehicle and other respondents are the original claimant. In the same way, in all the Special Civil Application, the driver, the owner and the hirer of the motor vehicle are the petitioners, the Insurance company, respondent No. 1, and the original claimants are the other respondents.

( 6 ) THE fact giving rise to the motor accident claim petitions are, in brief, as follows.

( 7 ) THE deceased Makna Siska, the deceased Magan Mansing Chhobla and other applicants, after completion of their labour work during the right shift on 12-5-1978, were travelling in the early morning on 13-5-1978 in the truck belonging to the appellant No. 2-Modern Construction Company, for going to their residential colony. While climbing a slope the appellant No. 1-Dattu Nathu kudekar, who was driving the vehicle lost control over its motion, as a result of which, the truck fell back in a ditch and Makna Siska and Magan Mansing chhobla died on the spot; while other claimants received injuries. So, the heirs of the two deceased and other injured persons filed their claims in the Tribunal. They pleaded that the truck which belonged to the Modern Construction Company and which was insured with the respondent-National Insurance Company, was engaged by Advance Engineering Company which is appellant No. 3 in these appeals, and the petitioner No. 3 in the Special Civil Application.

( 8 ) THE present appellants Nos. 1 and 2, who are also the petitioners Nos. 1 and 2 in Special Civil Application, who were the driver and the owner of the motor vehicle in question, filed similar joint written statement in all the petitioners, as opponents Nos. 1 and 2. These opponents contended that the claimants and the deceased were the workmen of opponent No. 2-Modern construction Company which was the owner of the motor vehicle and that the present appellant No. 3-Advance Engineering Company, had no concern with the work undertaken by t