Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J.

A vehicular traffic accident has given birth to eight appeals and four cross objections in hand, thus, I deem it proper to determine all these appeals and cross objections by this judgment.

2. The owner-insured and the driver of the offending vehicle are the appellants in all the eight appeals have called in question the award, dated 20.07.2007, made by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-II, Sirmaur District at Nahan, H.P. (for short "the Tribunal") in a batch of eight claim petitions, whereby compensation stood awarded in favour of the claimants and the owner-insured and the driver came to be saddled with liability (for short "the impugned award").

3. Some of the claimants/victims, by the medium of the cross-objections, have questioned the impugned award on the ground of adequacy of compensation.

4. The insurer and some of the claimants/victims have not questioned the impugned award on any ground.

5. In view of the above, the following questions are to be determined in these appeals and cross-objections:

(i) Whether the Tribunal has rightly saddled the owner-insured and the driver of the offending vehicle with liability and exonerated the insurer?

(ii) Whether the amount awarded is just and appropriate?

6. In order to determine the said questions, it is necessary to give brief resume of the case, the womb of which has given birth to these appeals and the cross-objections.

7. The claimants in five claim petitions, i.e. MAC Petitions No. 37-N/2 of 2002, 41-N/2 of 2002, 43-N/2 of 2002, 59-N/2 of 2002 and 33-N/2 of 2003 (subject matters of FAO No. 229 of 2008 & CO No. 611 of 2008, FAOs No. 226, 227, 225 of 2008 and FAO No. 231 of 2008 & CO No. 674 of 2008, respectively), are the dependents of the deceased who have lost their lives in the said traffic accident.

8. The claimants in three claim petitions, i.e. MAC Petitions No. 53-N/2 of 2002, 94-N/2 of 2002 and 35-N/2 of 2003 (i.e. subject matters of FAO No. 230 of 2008 & CO No. 612 of 2008, FAO No. 224 of 2008 and FAO No. 228 of 2007 & CO No. 612 of 2008, respectively), are the victims, who have sustained injuries in the said accident.

9. In all the claim petitions, it is averred that the driver, namely Shri Vijender Singh, had driven the offending vehicle, i.e. Mahindra Utility, bearing registration No. HP-18A-0165, rashly and negligently, on 15.04.2002, at about 8.00 A.M., near Kanlog, Tehsil Pachhad, District Sirmaur, H.P. and caused the accident, in which five persons, namely Randeep Singh, Vikram Singh, Dinesh Kumar, Hoshiar Singh and Om Prakash, sustained injuries and succumbed to the injuries and three persons, namely Krishan Chand, Partap Singh and Laxmi Singh sustained injuries.

10. The claimants have claimed compensation, as per the break-ups given in the respective claim petitions.

11. The owner-insured and the driver of the offending vehicle have filed joint replies in all the eight claim petitions. The insurer has also contested the claim petitions by the medium of the replies.

12. The Tribunal, after noticing the facts of the cases read with the fact that the five claim petitions are outcome of one accident and similar evidence is to be led in all the five claim petitions, clubbed the petitions, being MAC Petitions No. 37-N/2 of 2002, 41-N/2 of 2002, 43-N/2 of 2002, 53-N/2 of 2002 and 94-N/2 of 2002 and framed the following issues on 04.12.2002 in the lead case being MAC Petition No. 37-N/2 of 2002:

"1) Whether Randeep Singh Son of late Sunder Singh, Vikram Singh son of Sardar Singh and Dinesh Kumar son of Inder Prakash died in a motor accident caused by rash and negligent driving of a Mahindra Utility (No. HP-18 A-0165) by its driver Respondent 2, Vijender Singh, at Kanlog (Beuri) Village in Tehsil Pachhad, on April 15, 2002? ...OPP

2) Whether petitioners Laxmi Singh and Krishan Chand sustained grievous injuries in a motor accident caused by rash and negligent driving of a Mahindra Utility (No. HP-18 A-0165) by its driver respondent 2, Vijender Singh a