JUDGMENT :

1. This batch of appeals under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (“the Act” for short) are filed challenging the judgment and award dated 7.10.2006, passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Aux.) and Presiding Officer, 15th Fast Track Court, Vadodara the details of the same is as under:

2. In all these claim petitions, the compensation was awarded with 7.5% interest from the date of filing of the claim petition till realisation.

3. Since the above referred batch of appeals and cross objection are arising out of common judgment and award from the same accident, with the consent of the learned advocates for respective parties, they are heard and decided together.

4. The facts are:

On 28.4.1999, the original claimants were started travelling from Vadodara to Mahad to attend wedding ceremony of their relative. They all were travelling in Metador No.GJ 6U 1225 and while travelling on 30.4.1999 on Bombay Goa Highway when the Metador reached near Pandarpur village, a Truck No. MH 06-K-918 came from opposite direction in rash and negligent manner and dashed with Metador. For the said accident, the driver of Metador Santosh Madhukar Kadam and owner of Metador Rajaram Govind Utekar and other 6 to 7 passengers travelling in the said Metador died as well as others got injured. The Metador was also badly damaged. It was case of the original claimants that the accident occurred because of rash and negligent driving of driver of Truck No. MH 06-K-918. For the said accident, FIR was lodged being C.R. No.39 of 1999 before the Vadlam Police Station.Panchnama was also prepared. The original claimants filed claim petition before the Tribunal seeking compensation as under:

1. MACP No.1241 of 1999 filed by legal heirs of driver of Metador seeking compensation of Rs.9,50,000/-.

2. MACP No.1786 of 1999 was filed by legal heirs of owner of the Metador seeking compensation of Rs.15,00,000/-.

3. MACP No.1502 of 2000 was filed by legal heirs of owner of the Metador seeking Rs.2,00,000/- damage to the Metador.

Upon claim petition being filed, the Tribunal issued notices. The respondents appeared and filed their respective written statements. The Tribunal after hearing the parties and upon appreciation of evidence on record awarded compensation as stated in the table referred above.

In relation to negligence, the Tribunal held driver of Truck No. MH 06-K-918, as negligent t