New India Assurance Co vs Rahima Khatun And 5 Ors
2025 Latest Caselaw 8325 Gua

Gauhati High Court

New India Assurance Co vs Rahima Khatun And 5 Ors on 6 November, 2025

                                                                    Page No.# 1/16

GAHC010124852022




                                                              undefined

                       THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
  (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

                        Case No. : MACApp./509/2022

         NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.
         HAVING ITS REGISTERED AND HEAD OFFICE AT NEW INDIA ASSURANCE
         BUILDING, 87, MAHATMA GANDHI ROAD, FORT, MUMBAI-400001, AND
         REGIONAL OFFICE AT G.S. ROAD, GUWAHATI-5, REPRESENTED BY THE
         CHIEF REGIONAL MANAGER.



         VERSUS

         RAHIMA KHATUN AND 5 ORS.
         W/O- LATE SEKANDAR ALI, R/O- VILL.- NIZ BAGHBAR, P.O. AND P.S.
         BAGHBAR, DIST. BARPETA, ASSAM

         2:RAKIBUL HASSAN
          S/O- LATE SEKANDAR ALI
          R/O- VILL.- NIZ BAGHBAR
          P.O. AND P.S. BAGHBAR
          DIST. BARPETA
         ASSAM

         3:RASHIDUL HASSAN
          S/O- LATE SEKANDAR ALI
          R/O- VILL.- NIZ BAGHBAR
          P.O. AND P.S. BAGHBAR
          DIST. BARPETA
         ASSAM

         4:PANNALAL JAIN
          S/O- MOHANLAL JAIN
          R/O- KRISHNA MIL BUILDING
          2ND FLOOR
          BONGAIGAON
          P.S. AND DIST. BONGAIGAON
                                                                               Page No.# 2/16

             ASSAM
             PIN- 783380.

            5:MISRI LAL RAY
             S/O- BASHDEV RAY
            VILL.- CHOPAGURI
             31 NH WAY CENTER (KHAGRABARI)
             P.O. DHALIGAON
             P.S. DHALIGAON
             DIST. BONGAIGAON
            ASSAM

            6:RABIUL HUSSAIN
             S/O- LATE SAKANDA ALI
            VILL.- NIZ BAGHBOR
             P.O. AND P.S. BAGHBOR
             PIN- 781308
             DIST. BARPETA
            ASSA

Advocate for the Petitioner   : MR SISHIR DUTTA, MR. S DUTTA,MR S DUTTA,MS. S.
MOCHAHARI

Advocate for the Respondent : MR. H ALI (R- 1,2,3), MR. S P SHARMA (R-1,2,3),MS. C
MOZUMDAR(R-1,2,3),B BARMAN (R-6),MS. R CHOUDHURY (R- 1,2,3)




             Linked Case : MACApp./286/2022

            RAHIMA KHATUN AND 2 ORS.
            W/O LATE SAKANDER ALI
            RESIDENT OF VILLAGE NIZ BAGHBAR
            PO AND PS BAGHBAR
            DIST BARPETA
            ASSAM 781308

            2: RAKIBUL HASSAN
            S/O LATE SAKANDER ALI
            RESIDENT OF VILLAGE NIZ BAGHBAR
            PO AND PS BAGHBAR
             DIST BARPETA
            ASSAM 781308

             3: RASHIDUL HASSAN
                                                              Page No.# 3/16

 S/O LATE SAKANDER ALI
 RESIDENT OF VILLAGE NIZ BAGHBAR
 PO AND PS BAGHBAR
 DIST BARPETA
 ASSAM 781308
 VERSUS

 THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. AND 3 ORS.
 REPRESENTED BY ITS REGIONAL MANAGER
 BHANGAGARH
 G.S ROAD
 GUWAHATI


 2:PANNALAL JAIN
 S/O MOHANLAL JAIN
 R/O KRISHNA MIL BUILDING
  2ND FLOOR
  BONGAIGAION
 ASSAM 783380

 3:MISRI LAL RAY
 S/O BASHDEV RAY
 VILLAGE CHOAGURI 31 NH WAR CENTER

 PO AND PS DHALIGAON
 L DIST BONGAIGAON


 4:RABIUL HASSAN
 S/O LATE SAKANDER ALI
 PO AND PS BAGHBAR
 DIST BARPETA
 ASSAM 781308
 ------------

Advocate for : MS. R CHOUDHURY Advocate for : MR. S DUTTA appearing for THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. AND 3 ORS.

                           BEFORE
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUSMITA PHUKAN KHAUND


                                                                      Page No.# 4/16



Advocates for the Appellant          : Mr. S. Dutta, Advocate

Advocate for the Respondents : Mr. S. P. Sharma, Advocate Mr. H. Ali, Advocate Mr. B.Barman, Advocate

Advocates for the Appellants : Mr. S. P. Sharma, Advocate Mr. H. Ali, Advocate Mr. B.Barman, Advocate Advocate for the Respondents : Mr. S. Dutta, Advocate

Date on which judgment is reserved : 26.08.2025

Date of pronouncement of Judgment : 06.11.2025

Whether the pronouncement is of the Operative part of the judgment ? :

Whether the full judgment has been Pronounced ? :Pronouncement of full judgment.

JUDGEMENT AND ORDER (CAV)

1. Heard learned counsel Mr. S. Dutta for the insurer and learned counsel Page No.# 5/16

Mr. S. P. Sharma and learned counsel Mr. H. Ali for the Claimants.

2. The claimants Rahima Khatun, Rakibul Hassan and Rashidul Hassan have filed a claim petition registered as MAC Case No. 1831/ 2016. The New India Insurance Company Limited, Sri Pannalal Jain, Sri Misri Lal Ray and Rabiul Hussain were arrayed as respondent nos.1, 2, 3 and 4 respectively. Two appeals have been filed against the Judgment and Order dated 29.03.2022 passed by the learned Member, MACT No.1, Kamrup (M), Guwahati registered as MAC Appeal No. 509/ 2022 preferred by the appellants New India Assurance Company Ltd. against Rahima Khatun, Rakibul Hassan and Rashidul Hassan (hereinafter referred to as the 'claimants'), whereas the other appeal i.e. MAC Appeal No. 286/ 2022 has been preferred by Rahima Khatun and 2 others against the New India Insurance Company and proforma respondent Rabiul Hussain (who is one of the claimants). Both these appeals will be disposed of by this common judgment.

Argument on behalf of the original claimants.

3. The claimants are aggrieved by the impugned judgment and order as they are aggrieved by the quantum of compensation. It is submitted by the appellants that the award is required to be modified by giving full and final relief to the claimants. The learned Tribunal erred in holding the deceased to be liable for negligence and claimants were awarded only 50% of the compensation owing to contributory negligence by the deceased. The learned Tribunal has erred in holding both the vehicles responsible for the accident solely because of a collision between both the vehicles, in absence of concrete and clinching evidence. The evidence in a case under the Motor Vehicles Act has to be considered liberally and the strict rules of evidence are not required to be adhered to in such cases. A case of this nature can be proved on the touchstone Page No.# 6/16

of preponderance of probabilities.

4. It is contended that both the insurance Companies exhibited the GD entry as Exhibit-D, but the same was not substantiated and proved to hold the deceased liable for contributory negligence.

Argument for the Insurance Company:

5. On the contrary, it is averred by the insurance company that the learned member without application of mind assessed the loss of dependency by taking into consideration, the entire pensionary amount of the deceased, which is bad in law. On death of the deceased, his legal heirs will receive family pension which will be much lesser than Rs.22,128/- and the learned Member ought to have assessed the compensation on the basis of net loss incurred by the legal heirs in receiving the family pension. It is further contended that the learned member, mechanically awarded the sum of Rs. 40,000/- towards parental consortium which is contrary to the decision of the Honorable Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited vs Pranay Sethi and others reported in 2017 (16) SCC 680.

6. It is contended by the learned counsel for the Insurance Company that from the evidence adduced by the claimants and the materials brought on record, particularly the Accident Information Report on Form 54 (Exhibit 1), coupled with the certified copies of GD entry nos. 982 and 983 dated 25.03.2016 of Howly P.S., seizure list marked as Exhibit 2, 3 and 4, death summary certificate (Exhibit 5 to 11), post- mortem report of the deceased Sikandar Ali (Exhibit 12), FIR (Exhibit 16) and charge sheet (Exhibit 17), it is amply clear that the accident occurred on 25.03.2016 at about 4 PM at Howly near Jaswal road, Manas Kanya Dhaba under Howly P.S. in the district of Barpeta. Two vehicles were involved in the accident bearing registration No.AS-

Page No.# 7/16

19-C-4878-,an oil tanker, and a motorcycle bearing registration No. AF-15-A- 4461. The evidence also reveals that a police case was registered as Howly P.S. Case No. 209/ 2014 under Sections 279/304-A IPC against the claimants. It was held by the Tribunal that although the claimants have attributed the cause of accident to the negligence of the driver of the oil tanker, who is arrayed as OP no. 3 in the MAC Case no. 1831/2016, yet the claimants have failed to produce eye witnesses to the case. The documents of the police case suggest that the deceased was approaching the offending vehicle from the opposite direction but, the relevant GD entry nos. 982 and 983 suggest that the motorcycle of the deceased dashed against the rear wheel of the oil tanker. It was held by the Tribunal that the materials available on record does not clearly reveal the manner in which the accident had taken place. The MVI reports of the colliding vehicles were also silent relating to the damage caused to the vehicles and the learned Tribunal went ahead and held that both the vehicles are equally responsible for the alleged accident. It was held by the learned Tribunal that the allegation of rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle No. AS-19-C-4878 (oil tanker) stands established to the extent of 50%.

7. Therefore, the point for determination in this case is that:-

(i) Whether the learned Tribunal has erred by including the pension while calculating loss of dependency?

               (ii)           Whether the learned Tribunal has erroneously
               apportioned the parental consortium?
               (iii)          Whether the learned Tribunal has erred by holding
               both the vehicles liable for contributory negligence?
Decision:

8. I have considered the submissions at the Bar with circumspection. I have Page No.# 8/16

also scrutinized the trial court records.

9. The genesis of the case was that on 25.03.2016, at about 4 pm, Sikandar Ali, husband of claimant No.1 and father of claimant Nos. 2 and 3 was proceeding from Barpeta towards Howly on his motorcycle bearing registration No. AS-15-A- 4461 on the left side of the road and with normal speed. Unfortunately, he was knocked down near Jaswal Line Hotel from the back side by an oil tanker bearing registration no.AS-19-C-4878 which was also proceeding in the same direction with excessive speed and in a very rash and negligent manner. Consequentially, the deceased suffered head injuries and he was immediately taken by the public to the FAA Medical College and Hospital at Barpeta for treatment. After preliminary treatment, the deceased was referred to NH Narayana Superspeciality Hospital at Amingaon due to his serious condition. Accordingly, the deceased was immediately admitted at NH Narayana Superspeciality Hospital, Amingaon on 25.03.2016, but he succumbed to his injuries on 27.03.2016 at about 9:40 am. Autopsy was conducted and his body was handed over to his relatives for cremation. It is further contended by the claimants that the accident was the result of rash and negligent driving of the driver of the vehicle numbered AS-19-C-4878 (herein after referred to as 'offending vehicle'). It is further submitted that the claimant was a retired teacher and was receiving pension of Rs.22,128/- per month. He was also earning through a private engagement under the Bagbor Bazar Committee - cum- Bagbor Development Committee as Secretary and he was receiving a salary of Rs.10,000/- per month. He was the sole bread winner of his family and the claimants have prayed for a compensation of Rs. 41 lacs.

10. The owner and driver of the offending vehicle i.e. OP Nos. 2 and 3 have jointly filed written statements contending inter alia that the driver of the offending vehicle is not liable as he was not at fault and as the accident occurred owing to the rash and negligent act of the Page No.# 9/16

driver of the motorcycle. They have questioned the income of the deceased during his lifetime. Both the OP Nos. 2 and 3 have submitted that their vehicles were duly insured and all the necessary documents were valid at the time of the incident. The offending vehicle had a valid route permit. The driver of the offending vehicle i.e. OP No. 3 was carrying a valid driving license and the insurance policy was valid at the time of the accident.

11. The insurer of the offending vehicle i.e. OP No. 1 has filed written statement and has contended that the driver and the insurer of the motorcycle bearing registration number AS-15-A-4461 ought to have been made a party to the proceeding and this case is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. The insurer has also denied the rash and negligent act of the driver of the offending vehicle. The insurer has also questioned the income of the deceased during his lifetime. It is contended by the insurer that the compensation of Rs. 41 lacs is highly excessive and it may be a windfall against a situation which is uncalled for. It is further contended by the insurer that the claimants have failed to prove that the driver of the offending vehicle has acted in a rash and negligent manner with substantiating evidence. The insurer has also denied the additional income of the deceased after retirement @ Rs.10,000/- per month.

12. Now, the question is that whether the learned Tribunal has erred by holding the insurer responsible for contributory negligence and directing the insurer to pay 50% of the compensation awarded to the claimant. Learned Tribunal has relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma vs Delhi Transport Corporation and others reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 to ascertain the multiplier which was taken to be 7. The other point to be pondered is whether the Tribunal has correctly apportioned the pensionary benefits in calculating the compensation. After considering that the deceased has been survived by three legal heirs, the deduction on account of personal living expenses was taken as one third of the pension of the deceased, Page No.# 10/16

which he was receiving after retirement. The additional income of the deceased, after his retirement however has not been accepted by the learned Tribunal as no valid evidence could be produced by the claimants to prove the extra income of the deceased, after his retirement and of his engagement in the private sector.

13. Against the quantum of compensation, the insurer has been highly aggrieved and has relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Helen C. Rebello(Mrs) & Ors -vs- Maharashtra State road Transport Corporation & anr. reported in (1999) 1 SCC 90 wherein it has been observed that :

"34. This is based on the principle that the claimant for the happening of the same incidence may not gain twice from two sources. This, it is excluded thus, either through the wisdom of legislature or through the principle of loss and gain through deduction not to give gain to the claimant twice arising from the same transaction, viz., same accident. It is significant to record here in both the sources, viz., either under the Motor Vehicles Act or from the employer, the compensation receivable by the claimant is either statutory or through the security of the employer securing for his employee but in both cases he receives the amount without his contribution. How thus an amount earned out of one's labour or contribution towards one's wealth, savings, etc. either for himself or for his family, which such person knows, under the law, has to go to his heirs after his death either by succession or under a will could be said to be the 'pecuniary gain' only on account of one's accidental death. This, of course, is pecuniary gain but how this is equitable or could be balanced out of the amount to be received as compensation under the Motor Vehicle Act. There is no co-relation between the two amounts. Not even remotely. How can an amount of loss and gain of one contract could be made applicable to the loss and gain of another contract. Similarly, how an amount receivable under a statute has any co-relation with an amount earned by an individual. Principle of loss and gain has to be on the same place within the same sphere, of course, subject to the contract to the contrary or any provisions of law.

35. Broadly, we may examine the receipt of the provident fund which is a deferred Page No.# 11/16

payment out of the contribution made by an employee during the tenure of his service. Such employee or his heirs are entitled to receive this amount irrespective of the accidental death. This amount is secured, is certain to be received, while the amount under the Motor Vehicles Act is uncertain and is receivable only on the happening of the event viz., accident which may not take place at all. Similarly., family pension is also earned by an employee for the benefit of his family in the form of his contribution in the service in terms of the service conditions receivable by the heirs after his death. The heirs receive family pension even otherwise than the accidental death. No co-relation between the two. Similarly, life insurance policy is received either by the insured or the heirs of the insured on account of the contract with the insurer, for which insured contributes in the form of premium. It is receivable even by the insured, if he lives till maturity after paying all the premiums, in the case of death insurer indemnifies to pay the sum to the heirs, again in terms of the contracts for the premium paid. Again, this amount is receivable by the claimant not on account of any accidental death but otherwise on insured's death. Death is only a step or contingency in terms of the contract, to receive the amount. Similarly any case, bank balance, shares, fixed deposits, etc. though are all a pecuniary advantage receivable by the heirs on account of one's death but all these have no co-relation with the amount receivable under a statute occasioned only on account of accidental death. How could such an amount come within the periphery of the Motor Vehicles Act to be termed as 'pecuniary advantage' liable for deduction. When we seek the principle of loss and gain, it has to be on similar and same plane having nexus inter so between them and not to which, there is no semblance of any co-relation. The insured (deceased) contributes his own money for which he receives the amount has no co-relation to the compensation computed as against torfeasor for his negligence on account of accident. As aforesaid, the amount receivable as compensation under the Act is on account of the injury of death without making any contribution towards it then how can fruits of an amount received through contributions of the insured be deducted out of the amount receivable under the Motor Vehicles Act. The amount under this Act, he receives without any contribution. As we have said the compensation payable under the Motor Vehicles Act is statutory while the amount received under the life insurance policy is contractual."

14. Reverting back to this case, it is held that while discussing paragraph 34 in Page No.# 12/16

Helen C Rebello's Case (supra), the insurance of the employees by the employers in event of death was taken into consideration and this is not similar to pensionary benefits.

15. The claimants too have relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case Helen C. Rebello (Mrs) & Ors (supra) wherein, it has been held that:

"39. Broadly, we may examine the receipt of the provident fund which is a deferred payment out of the contribution made by an employee during the tenure of his service. Such employee or his heirs are entitled to receive this amount irrespective of the accidental death. This amount is secured, is certain to be received, while the amount under the Motor Vehicles Act is uncertain and is receivable only on the happening of the event viz., accident which may not take place at all. Similarly., family pension is also earned by an employee for the benefit of his family in the form of his contribution in the service in terms of the service conditions receivable by the heirs after his death. The heirs receive family pension even otherwise than the accidental death. No co-relation between the two. Similarly, life insurance policy is received either by the insured or the heirs of the insured on account of the contract with the insurer, for which insured contributes in the form of premium. It is receivable even by the insured, if he lives till maturity after paying all the premiums, in the case of death insurer indemnifies to pay the sum to the heirs, again in terms of the contracts for the premium paid. Again, this amount is receivable by the claimant not on account of any accidental death but otherwise on insured's death. Death is only a step or contingency in terms of the contract, to receive the amount. Similarly any case, bank balance, shares, fixed deposits, etc. though are all a pecuniary advantage receivable by the heirs on account of one's death but all these have no co-relation with the amount receivable under a statute occasioned only on account of accidental death. How could such an amount come within the periphery of the Motor Vehicles Act to be termed as 'pecuniary advantage' liable for deduction. When we seek the principle of loss and gain, it has to be on similar and same plane having nexus inter se between them and not to which, there is no semblance of any co-relation. The insured (deceased) contributes his own money for which he receives the amount has no co-relation to the compensation computed as against torfeasor for his negligence on account of accident. As aforesaid, the amount receivable as compensation under the Act is on account of the injury of death without making any contribution towards it then how can fruits of an amount received through contributions of the insured Page No.# 13/16

be deducted out of the amount receivable under the Motor Vehicles Act. The amount under this Act, he receives without any contribution. As we have said the compensation payable under the Motor Vehicles Act is statutory while the amount received under the life insurance policy is contractual.

40. As we have observed the whole scheme of the Act, in relation of the payment of compensation to the claimant, is beneficial legislation, the intention of the legislature is made more clear by the change of language from what was in Fatal Accidents Act, 1855 and what is brought under Section 110-B of 1939 Act. This is also visible through the provision of Section 168(1) under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and Section 92-A of 1939 Act which fixes the liability on the owner of the vehicle even on no fault. It provides where the death or permanent disablement of any person has resulted from an accident inspite of no fault of the owner of the vehicle, an amount of compensation fixed therein is payable to claimant by such owner of the vehicle. Section 92-B ensures that the claim for compensation under Section 92-A is in addition to any other right to claim compensation respect whereof under any other provision of this Act or of any other law for the time being in force. This clearly indicates the intention of the legislature which is conferring larger benefit to the claimant. Interpretation of such beneficial legislation is also well settled. Whenever there be two possible interpretations in such statute then the one which subserves the object of legislation, viz., benefit to the subject should be accepted. In the present case, two interpretations have given of this statute, evidenced by two distinct sets of decisions of the various high courts. We have no hesitation to conclude that the set of decisions, which applied the principle of no deduction of the life insurance amount should be accepted and the other set, which interpreted to deduct, is to be rejected. For all these consideration we have no hesitation to hold that such High Courts were wrong in deducting the amount paid or payable under the life insurance by giving restricted meaning to the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act basing mostly on the language of English statutes and not taking into consideration the changed language and intends of the legislature under various provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939.

41.Accordingly, we set aside the impugned judgment dated 9th September, 1985 and restore the judgment of the tribunal dated 29 September, 1980 and hold that the amount received by the claimant on the life insurance of the deceased is not deductible from the compensation computed under the Motor Vehicles Act.. The concerned respondent shall make the payment accordingly, if not already paid in terms thereof."

16. The contrary, learned counsel for the claimants has relied on the decision Page No.# 14/16

of this Court in the case of Luna Devi & Ors -vs- The National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. reported in (2016) 1 GLR 426 wherein it has been observed that :

"13............. The judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Lal Dei (Supra) and Helen C. Rebello (supra) clearly show that such amount has no nexus in connection with the compensation available in a motor accident. They are based on two different considerations and so the Hon'ble Supreme Court did not find favour with deducting any amount equal to family pension from the entitlement of claimant in motor vehicle accident claim case. The law being settled in this regard in the aforesaid cases, the first point for determination as to untenability of such deduction decided in the affirmative. Accordingly, the learned Tribunal committed error in making the deduction of family pension from the entitlement of the claimants."

17. I find force in the argument of the learned counsel for the claimants. Therefore, in the light of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Helen C. Rebello (Mrs) (supra) and also the decision of this court in Luna Devi (supra), it is held that the law being well settled in this regard in the aforesaid decisions, the impugned opinion of the Tribunal does not warrant any interference . It is held that the learned Tribunal has not erred while considering the family pension for calculating the loss of dependency.

18. The learned Tribunal has also recorded sound reasoning while holding the driver of both the vehicles i.e. the offending vehicle and the motorcycle, liable for contributory negligence. It was held by the Tribunal that there was sufficient evidence and an FIR was registered against Mr. Misri Lal Ray who drove the offending vehicle at the time of the accident. Charge sheet has also been laid against him in connection with Howli PS Case no. 209/2014 under sections 279/304-A IPC. Even on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities, the Page No.# 15/16

rash and negligent act of the driver of the offending vehicle has been established. The only reason why the Tribunal has not held the driver of the offending vehicle entirely liable was lack of eyewitnesses at the time of the accident. Certified copy of the Charge sheet is marked as Exhibit-17 and thus, there appears to be no reason to interfere with the decision of the learned Tribunal.

19. The learned counsel for the insurer has assailed the decision of the learned Tribunal in granting Rs.40,000/- as parental consortium. A scrutiny of the decision of the Tribunal impugned by the insurer as well as by the claimants clearly reveals that it was categorically held by the Tribunal that the deicsion of National Insurance Company Limited vs Pranay Sethi and others reported in (2017) 4 ACJ 2700 has settled the law regarding future prospects. It was held by the Tribunal that :- " Having seen the ratio of the judgment, I have no hesitation to hold that the present case also qualifies for no future prospect since 'he died in the age group of more than 60 years." Although the learned Tribunal has held that that future prospects are not to be calculated, consortium has been correctly calculated as it has been held in Pranay Sethi (supra) as follows:

"54.......It seems to us that reasonable figures on conventional heads, namely, loss of estate, loss of consortium and funeral expenses should be Rs. 15,000/-, Rs. 40,000/- and Rs. 15,000/- respectively. The principle of revisiting the said heads is an acceptable principle. But the revisit should not be fact-centric or quantum-centric. We think that it would be condign that the amount that we have quantified should be enhanced on percentage basis in every three years and the enhancement should be at the rate of 10% in a span of three years. We are disposed to hold so because that will bring in consistency in respect of those heads."

20. In view of the foregoing discussions, it is hereby held that there appears to be no reason to interfere with the decision of the learned Tribunal. Both the Page No.# 16/16

appeals preferred by the claimants vis-à-vis the insurer are hereby dismissed as both the appeals are bereft of merits.

21. The Judgment and award dated 29.03.2022 is hereby upheld.

22. Send back the original records of the Tribunal.

23. Parties to bear their own costs.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant