Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points:

1. The appeals arise from a common judgment related to motor vehicle accident claims involving the death of two individuals, Clifford Stephen and Steev Stephen, with the claims filed under different sections of the Motor Vehicles Act (Sections 163-A and 166) (!) (!) .

2. The Tribunal awarded compensation amounts for both cases, with detailed considerations of liability, negligence, and the extent of damages. The awards included specific amounts for loss of dependency, funeral expenses, and loss of estate (!) (!) (!) (!) .

3. The insurance company contested the claims primarily on the grounds that the claimant's asserted monthly income was higher than what the Tribunal considered, and that the claim should be dismissed under procedural provisions (Order 41, Rule 33 of CPC) because the insurer did not file an appeal or cross-objection against the original award (!) (!) (!) (!) .

4. The Court emphasized that the power under Order 41, Rule 33 is discretionary and should be exercised cautiously, mainly to prevent contradictory decisions on the same issues. It clarified that such power cannot be exercised to dismiss claims or awards without proper procedural grounds, especially when the original judgment has become final due to the absence of an appeal or cross-objection by the opposing party (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .

5. The Court found that the insurance company, despite having admitted coverage and liability, did not challenge the original award through appeal or cross-objection, and thus, invoking Order 41, Rule 33 to dismiss or modify the award was not justified (!) (!) (!) .

6. The Court also scrutinized the method of calculation of compensation by the Tribunal, particularly criticizing the use of the multiplier method instead of the structured formula prescribed under the relevant schedule for claims under Section 163-A. The Court noted that the correct approach is to use the structured formula, considering the age and income of the deceased, and that the Tribunal's method was irregular and unjustified (!) (!) (!) .

7. Adjustments to the compensation amounts were ordered, including increasing the awards for loss of dependency and additional heads such as funeral expenses and pain and suffering, based on the evidence and applicable legal principles. The Court directed the respective respondents to deposit the enhanced amounts within a specified period (!) (!) (!) .

8. The appeals were allowed to the extent of increasing the awarded compensation, with the parties bearing their respective costs, and the insurance company directed to deposit the additional amounts with interest within three months (!) (!) .

These points encapsulate the core legal and factual issues, the Court’s reasoning regarding procedural and substantive law, and the final directions issued.