JUDGMENT :

K.M. THAKER, J.

1. The above mentioned group of Appeals is directed against the common award dated 1st April, 2006 passed by the M.A.C. Tribunal (Main), Kheda at Nadiad in M.A.C.P. Nos. 1823 of 1992 to 1831 of 1992 whereby the learned Tribunal has, while passing award in favour of the claimants and awarding compensation at the rates mentioned in the award, exonerated the insurance company from the liability to pay the compensation and passed the award against the opponent Nos.1 and 2.

1.1 So far as the above mentioned group of writ petitions is concerned, the said writ petitions also arise from the above mentioned common award dated 1st April, 2006. The petitions have been preferred against the award in connection with M.A.C.P. Nos. 1834 of 1992 to 1847 of 1992 because the claim amounts awarded by the learned Tribunal in the said cases i.e. M.A.C.P. Nos. 1834 of 1992 to 1847 of 1992, as stated by the petitioners are less than Rs. 10,000/-. The writ petitions have been preferred with the same grievance and for same relief.

2. In view of the aforesaid position, the appellants and the writ petitioners are, for the sake of convenience, referred to as "the claimants" which would also include the original claimant and their heirs/legal representatives as well as the victim of the accident.

3. From the challenge raised in the appeals and the petitions and contentions in support of the challenge, it emerges that the claimants are aggrieved by the impugned award, only to the limited extent by which the learned Tribunal has exonerated the insurance company. There is no grievance and/or challenge made out from the side of the claimants so far as the quantification of the compensation is concerned.

4. Even during hearing of the appeals and the writ petitions, learned advocate Mr. Devnani representing the claimants, has not made any submission and/or raised any contention with reference to the quantification of the compensation.

5. Earlier, the writ petitions were placed for hearing in January, 2009 when the Court was pleased to pass below mentioned order on 15th January, 2009.

"Learned advocate Shri Dharmesh Devnani for the petitioners states that against some of the awards arising out of the common judgment, the claimants have filed First Appeals which are pending before this Court at the stage of delay condonation.

These petitions be placed along with the connected matters being C.A. No.6335 of 2008 in First Appeal (St.) No.4552 of 2007 and allied matters."

6. Subsequently, the appeals and the writ petitions were heard on 7th April, 2010 and after hearing the learned advocate for the claimants, following order was passed on 7th April, 2010.

"Heard Mr. Devnani, learned advocate for the appellants/petitioners. He has submitted that as per the orders passed in another Civil Application, additional parties at Nos. 2/1 and 2/2 have been brought on record. He has further submitted that subsequently, it in- formed by the opponent that No.2/2 was not one of the partners hence, his name has been deleted in view of the order dated 1st October, 2009. Therefore, now only No.2/1, besides opponent Nos. 1, 2 and 3, survives as the additional party to the proceedings who has been impleaded by virtue of the order passed in Civil Application Nos.215 to 223 of 2009.

Issue Notice returnable on 19th April, 2010.

Direct service is permitted today.

The appellants shall effect the direct service to the insurance company on or before 13th April, 2010.

The direct service to be handed over to the appellants today itself.

The appellants/petitioners will take all necessary steps to ensure that the notice is served to the insurance company as specified above."

7. After the said order dated 7th April, 2010, the writ petitions and the appeals were heard at length on 19th April, 2010 i.e. today. Mr. Devnani, learned advocate, has appeared for the claimants in all appeals/writ petitions and Mr. Parikh, learned advocate, has appeared for the respondent Nos. 2, 2.1. As per the