JUDGMENT :

Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J.

1. Both these appeals are outcome of a common award, thus, I deem it proper to determine both these appeals by this common judgment.

2. Challenge in both these appeals is to award, dated 2nd November, 2011, made by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Shimla, H.P. (for short ?the Tribunal?) in M.A.C. Petition No. 52-S/2 of 2009, titled as Sh. Phool Chand versus Smt. Veena Devi and others, whereby compensation to the tune of ? 75,000/- with interest @ 8% per annum from the date of the claim petition till its realization alongwith costs assessed at ? 5,000/- came to be awarded in favour of the claimant-injured and against the insurer (for short ?the impugned award?).

3. The owner-insured and driver of the offending vehicle have not questioned the impugned award on any count, thus, has attained finality so far it relates to them.

4. The insurer has questioned the impugned award by the medium of FAO No. 36 of 2012 on the ground that the Tribunal has fallen in an error in saddling it with liability and exonerating the owner-insured of the offending vehicle for the reason that the owner-insured has not obtained the route permit of the offending vehicle at the r