JUDGMENT :

ASHUTOSH SHASTRI, J.

1. This group of appeals is arising out of very same vehicular accident and arising out of common judgment and award passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux.) Panchmahal at Godhra, whereby claim petitions came to be dismissed, vide judgment and order dated 30.5.2006. Since facts are almost similar and controversy involved is same, learned advocates appearing on behalf respective sides have requested the Court to deal with and dispose of these appeals by present common order and pursuant to such request, hearing was taken up.

2. The brief facts which gave rise to filing of these appeals are that a vehicular accident had taken place on 15.6.1997 between Maruti car bearing registration No. GJ-17 C-3033 and Truck bearing registration No. DL-1 GA-8839 on Baroda Halol Highway, Near Machchilpura village and in the said accident, all passengers who were in Maruti car sustained serious injuries, which resulted into consequential death. Deceased were Mohmad Hanif Abdul Majid, Hajrabibi Mohmad Hanif, Minor Tahir and Minor Soyeb. This accident had given rise to filing of four separate claim petitions before Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Panchmahal, which were registered as Motor Accident Claim Petition Petition Nos.1538, 1539, 1550 and 1551 of 1997. In the year 2000, appellant of present appeal namely Mohammad Harun Abdul Rahim Haji (deleted vide order below Exh.26), Jetunbibi Harun Haji had moved an application for being joined as party in afore-mentioned claim petitions. By common judgment, said application came to be rejected on 3.1.2000 and said order appears to have not been disturbed though same was challenged by way of filing Civil Revision Application in the High Court. Subsequently, these two appellants thereafter in the year 2005 filed a substantive claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 despite order was passed against them way back in 2000, precisely on 3.1.2000 as indicated above. However, their claim petitions were registered as MACP Nos.1419 of 2005, 1420 of 2005, 1421 of 2005 and 1422 of 2005. It appears from record that present appellants had moved an application below Exh.5 for seeking a relief to consolidate their claim petitions of 2005 with earlier set of claim petitions of 1997. However, learned Tribunal was pleased to reject the said request on 10.4.2006 by common order and as such taking note of these circumstances, claim petitions filed by present appellants came to be dismissed by common order dated 30.5.2006 by virtue of which, MACP Nos.1419, 1420, 1421 and 1422 of 2005 came to be dismissed and it is against this order, appellants have filed present appeals under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act.

3. Appeals were admitted and in between, upon similar Civil Applications for stay, respective orders have been passed and with background of the afore-mentioned facts, present appeals have come up for consideration before this Court. Since these appeals are arising out of common order and very same accident and on the basis of very same circumstances, learned advocate has concentrated to make submissions from First Appeal No. 3245 of 2006 being a lead matter and as such, by treating this appeal as a lead matter, the Court has taken up the hearing.

4. Learned advocate Mr. M.A. Kharadi appearing on behalf of appellants has submitted that order passed by learned Tribunal dated 30.5.2006 is not only unjust, arbitrary but contrary to the provisions of law and without jurisdiction and as such same deserves to be corrected by issuing appropriate consequential orders. It has been contended that learned Tribunal ought to have appreciated that daughter of the appellant who met with an accident, property of her cannot be inherited by respondent Nos.7 to 9 under Muslim Personal Law and since they cannot inherit property, question of claiming compensation does not arise and same is a case with mother-in-law as well as brother-in-law who cannot inherit property of the