1. These three appeals are preferred against a common order passed by the Claims Tribunal. Therefore, they are taken up for consideration together.

2. M.V.C. No. 102 of 2008 is filed by Lalitha for compensation claiming to be the first wife of the deceased Rudragouda Patil; M.V.C. No. 73 of 2009 is also filed for compensation by Pushpa and Neethi, claiming to be the wife and daughter of deceased Rudragouda Patil. Both these petitions were clubbed with another petition, where claim for injury was made, common evidence was recorded and impugned order came to be passed, dismissing the petition filed by Pushpa and Neethi and M.F.A. No. 24186 of 2012 is filed against the said dismissal order. In M.V.C. No. 102 of 2008, while awarding compensation to Lalitha, a finding was recorded that Pushpa, respondent No. 3 therein, is not the wife of Rudragouda Patil and, therefore, she is not entitled to any compensation. Therefore, Pushpa has preferred M.F.A. No. 24051 of 2012. Lalitha, who claims to be the first wife, has also preferred M.F.A. No. 24165 of 2012 seeking enhancement of compensation. As such these three appeals are taken together for consideration and disposed of by a common order.