1. The present appellants, being dissatisfied with the judgment and award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux.) 3rd Fast Track Court, Panchmahal at Godhra in MACP No. 1055/1998 and MACP No. 1056/1998 dated 18th September 2016, have preferred these separate appeals before this Court under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act.

2. As the accident was common and considering the evidence on record, common order was passed by the tribunal and this appeal is taken up for final hearing and common order is passed.

3. Brief facts of the present case are as under:

Claim petition No. 1055 of 1998 was filed by the applicant on account of death of his wife Savitaben in the motor vehicular accident while claim petition No. 1056 of 1998 was filed by the claimant on account of death of her daughter namely Manjulaben against the opponents claiming amount of compensation to the tune of Rs. 5,20,000/- in MACP No. 1055 of 1998 and Rs. 2,10,000/- in MACP No. 1056 of 1998 . As per the averments made in the claim petition, on 15th May 1998, the applicant alongwith his wife Savitaben and daughter Manjulaben were travelling in a tempo, bearing registration No. GJ-20-T-3096 as an owner of the goods and were proceeding from Motirath to Santarampur. That, the fare of the tempo was paid to the opponent no.1. The opponent no.1 was driving his tempo with an excessive speed, rashly and negligently and lost control over the tempo at about 10.00 o’clock in the morning nearby Motirath 52 Tarkoni Nal village. In the said accident, wife of the applicant namely Savitaben and daughter Manjulaben were died on the spot. That, police complaint was lodged against the opponent no.1 before the Ditwa Police Station, being CR No. I-19/1998. That, the tribunal issued notice to the opponents, they remained absent, and therefore, the proceedings were ordered to be proceeded exparte against them.

4. Written statement was filed by the opponent no.3 vide Ex. 18 in MACP No. 1055 of 1998 and contentions raised by the applicant were not admitted by this opponent except specifically admitted. Involvement of the tempo, bearing registration No. GJ-20-T-3096, the date of the accident, the applicant/deceased were travelling as an owner of the goods paying fare of the tempo, earning part as stated by the applicant, place of the accident, date of the accident and manner in which the alleged accident was occured, negligence on the part of the opponent no.1 for causing accident were not admitted. Any injury sustained by the deceased in motor vehicular accident was denied by this opponent. The age and income of the deceased at the time of accident or entitlement of compensation which is prayed by the applicant was also not admitted. Ultimately, it was requested by opponent no.3 to dismiss the claim petition. With the same contents, another written statement was filed by the said opponent vide ex. 19 in MACP No. 1056 of 1998.

5. The tribunal, after framing the issues and recording the evidence produced by the parties, was pleased to allow the claim petitions in part against the opponents no.1 and 2 held them liable to pay the compensation as per the order dated 18.09.2006 and the claim petitions against the opponent no.3 was dismissed by the tribunal. Hence, these appeals are preferred by the claimant.

6. Heard learned advocate for the appellants in both the appeals.

7. It was submitted by learned advocate for the appellants that the order passed by the tribunal is contrary to law, illegal, unjust and unreasonable. It is further submitted that it was clear case of the applicant that the deceased was travelling as an owner of the goods in tempo, bearing registration No. GJ-20-T-3096. However, the learned tribunal has committed an error in not considering the facts of the case. That, merely because non discloser of the goods in the complaint as well as in the panchnama of scene of offence drawn by the investigating agency, the tribunal has committed a grave error in not considerin