JUDGMENT :

A.J. Desai, J.

1. The aforesaid two First Appeals have been filed by the appellant - New India Assurance Company Limited - original respondent No. 2 in the Claim Petitions, under Section 173 read with Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 challenging the judgment and award dated 13.7.2007 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxiliary), Gandhinagar (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') in Motor Accident Claim Petition Nos. 332 and 333 of 2006. By the said award, the Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs.12,54,960/- to the legal heirs of deceased Mukesh v. Raval (original claimants of Claim Petition No. 332 of 2006 - respondent Nos. 2 to 4 of First Appeal No. 4082 of 2008) and Rs.10,51,200/- to the legal heirs of deceased Shahid Chhatrasinh Parmar (original claimants of Claim Petition No. 333 of 2006 - respondent Nos. 2 to 5 of First Appeal No. 4083 of 2008), with proportionate cost and interest @ 7.5 % p.a. from the date of petition till realization.

2. The short facts arise from the record are as under:-

2.1 That on 4.8.2006 at about 8.30 p.m., one Mukesh V. Raval, who was working as Plant Operator with Gujarat Electricity Board was travelling on his two wheeler being Registration No.-GJ-18-P-8714 along with Shahid Chhatrasinh Parmar who was working with Doshian Limited as Mechanical Engineer, and at that time, one Ambassador Car bearing Registration No. GJ-18-G-1112 came in excessive speed and dashed with the bike due to which both Mukesh V. Raval and Shahid Parmar sustained serious injuries and they succumbed to the said injuries.

2.2 Legal heirs of Mukesh V. Patel filed MACP No. 332 of 2006 claiming compensation of Rs. 35 Lacs with proportionate cost and interest @ 15% p.a. from the opponents jointly and severally.

2.3 Legal heirs of Shahid Chhatrasinh Parmar filed MACP No. 333 of 2006 claiming compensation of Rs. 20 Lacs with proportionate cost and interest @ 15% p.a. from the opponents jointly and severally.

2.4 The respondent No. 1 - Superintendent Engineer, R & B Department, Gandhinagar as well as respondent No. 2 - New India Assurance Company Limited, appeared before the Tribunal. The respondent No. 2 - New India Assurance Company Limited filed its written statement at Exh. 19 in both the claim petitions and opposed the compensation prayed for by the claimants, whereas respondent No. 1 - Superintendent Engineer initially did not file written statement. However, on completion of the evidence on behalf of the claimants, respondent No. 1 filed written statement at Exh. 50.

2.3 The Tribunal after considering the depositions and the documentary evidence, passed the award under challenge.

2.4 Hence the present appeals.

3. During the pendency of the appeals, legal heirs of the deceased - original claimants filed cross objections in both the appeals seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded and the same were ordered to be heard along with the first appeals.

4. Mr. Vibhuti Nanavati, learned advocate appearing for the appellant - Insurance Company, at the outset, would submit that when the appellant - Insurance Company came to know about passing of the award without affording an opportunity to the Insurance Company to lead its evidence before the Tribunal, writ petitions being Special Civil Application No. 9174 and 9175 of 2008 were fled. The said petitions were disposed of by oral order dated 11.7.2008 permitting the appellant to prefer First Appeals and clarifying that rights of the parties would be governed by the order which may be passed in the First Appeals. He has placed on record copy of the said order.

4.1. Mr. Nanavati, by taking us through the records and proceedings of the Tribunal and particularly, Rojkam would submit that the matter was listed on 29.6.2007 and on the said date, closing pursis on behalf of the claimants was filed and the matter was fixed on 7.7.2007 for leading evidence on behalf of the respondents. On 7.7.007, respondent No. 1 - Superintendent Engineer, R & B Department, w