JUDGMENT 1. - Since all the aforesaid five appeals arise out of the judgment and award dated 29-7-2011 passed by MACT, Shahpura, hence the arguments have been heard together and they are being decided by this common judgment. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 31-8-2003, deceased persons with their family members were coming from Ringus to Chomu in Jeep No. RJ-05-C-1708. At about 9.45-10.00 a.m. before Udaipuria Mode, Roadways Bus No. RJ-32-P-1040 came from opposite direction in rash and negligent manner and head on collided with the Jeep. As a result of this accident, as many as 17 persons died at spot and 5-7 persons sustained grievous injuries who too died during treatment. 3. Thereafter, First Information Report was lodged. Claim petition were filed. Thereafter, notices were issued, written statement was filed, issues were framed, evidence was submitted and after hearing the arguments of both the sides, the learned Tribunal has passed the impugned award, vide which claim petitions have been dismissed. 4. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid award dated 29-7-2011, the claimants have filed the aforesaid appeals. 5. Learned counsel for the appellants has contended that the learned Tribunal has erred in not holding the bus driver negligent for the accident whereas his negligence was proved by the claimants in their testimony. Even otherwise, it is a case of head on collusion at mode and therefore, as per doctrine of contributory negligence, the bus driver was also negligent in the accident. He has further contended that the learned Tribunal has erred in deciding the issue No. 3 against the appellants by holding that they are not the dependent of the deceased. The finding so given by the learned Tribunal is contrary to the definition of 'dependent' given in the MV Act and is also against the provisions of Hindu Succession Act. In support of his contentions, he has placed reliance on the judgment of Madras High Court rendered in the case of the Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd. v. M. Shanthi & Ors., reported in AIR 2011 Madras 118. 6. E Converso, the learned counsel for the respondents defended the impugned award and stated the same to be just and apposite. He further contended that the learned Tribunal after analysing the matter in detail, rightly dismissed the claim petitions of the claimants. 6. E Converso, the learned counsel for the respondents defended the impugned award and stated the same to be just and apposite. He further contended that the learned Tribunal after analysing the matter in detail, rightly dismissed the claim petitions of the claimants. In support of his contentions, he has placed reliance on the judgment rendered in the case of Smt. Manjuri Bera v. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., reported in AIR 2007 SC 1474 . 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case and also the evidence emerging on record, as submitted by both the parties and on perusal of the impugned award, I do not think it proper to interfere in the impugned award dated 29-7-2011 passed by the learned Tribunal. 8. Hence, all the aforesaid five appeals fail and the same being benefit of any merit deserve to be dismissed, which stand dismissed accordingly. 9. Consequent upon the dismissal of appeals, the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, filed herewith, does not survive and it stands disposed of accordingly.Appeal dismissed. *******