1. - The decision rendered in this miscellaneous appeal shall also govern the disposal of other connected appeals being C.M.A. No. 426/2001, 427/2001, 429/2001, 430/2001, 433/2001, 435/2001, 428/2001, 431/2001, 432/2001 and Cross Objection No. 33/2002, 7/2004 and 4/2006 because firstly all these appeals arise out of one award, secondly all are filed by claimants and thirdly all appeals arise out of one vehicular accident.

2. This is a miscellaneous appeal filed by claimants under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act (For Short called 'The Act') against an award dated 16.1.2001 passed by MACT, Rajsamand in Claim Case No. 109/98.

3. By impugned award, the Claims Tribunal dismissed the claim petition of appellants along with other claim petitions out of which connected miscellaneous appeals arise on the ground that claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Act on facts and evidence adduced by the parties for claiming compensation for the death of one Hajarilal is not maintainable.

4. So the question that arises for consideration in this appeal so also in connected appeals is essentially two fold. Firstly whether Tribunal was justified in dismissing the claim petition as being not maintainable under Section 166 ibid and secondly if it is held maintainable then how much compensation, each claimant in their respective claim petition is entitled to claim from the non appellants, for the death of persons who died in vehicular accident in question.

5. Facts of the case are these.

6. On 11.7.1991, 11 persons by name, Shantilal Jain, Prakash Chandra, Devilal, Hajari, Suresh, Ranjit Singh, Chunnidas, Arjunlal, Sunderlal, Kanhaiyalal and Gulab were travelling in one jeep bearing number RPJ 5511 on Rajsamand-Nathdwara road. When the jeep crossed one river (Khari), a Dumper bearing No. RRJ-7661 coming from opposite direction which was being driven by N.A.1/2 dashed to jeep. Due to this dash, the jeep collapsed near the road resulting in death of all the persons mentioned above.

7. It is this event which led to filing of 9 claim petitions out of which these miscellaneous appeals arise by their legal representatives who died in vehicular accident. It was filed under Section 166 of the Act against owner, driver and Insurer of offending vehicle i.e. Dumper which according to claimants dashed to the Jeep in which deceased persons were travelling. All the claim petitions were founded on common allegations as material pleadings.

8. It may here be mentioned for completing the narration of the facts that after the incident, an F.I.R. was lodged against the non applicants 1/2 i.e. owner/driver of dumper complaining that it was a case of murder of the persons travelling in jeep alleged to be committed by non applicants who were driving the Dumper. The State accordingly took cognizance of the F.I.R. and prosecuted non applicants No. 1/2 along with others for commission of offence of murder of these persons in ST No. 119/91. Vide judgment dated 9/10-8-94 the Sessions Judge convicted the non applicants 1/2 for commission of murder in Sessions Case No. 27/94 (50/91). The non applicants felt aggrieved filed criminal appeal in the High Court. The High Court, vide judgment dated 4.9.1995 passed in the case of State v. Vijay Singh, (see 1996(1) RCD 387 (Raj.) allowed the criminal appeal of accused and while setting the order of conviction passed by Sessions Judge acquitted the accused (Non applicants No. 1/2) from the charges levelled against them.

9. Coming now to the facts of the claim case out of which these miscellaneous appeals arise, the claimants had initially made an averment in their claim petitions that due to some previous animosity between the deceased persons and the non applicants, the non applicants No.1/2 indulged in commission of offence of murder in this form which resulted in death of these persons. This is what was originally averred in the claim petition:-

"2- gka] mDr ?kVuk esa izkFkhZ la[;k 1 ds ifr ,oa izkFkhZx.k la[;k nks ls pkj ds f