JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Shri Abhishek, learned counsel for appellants and Shri Nishant Mehrotra appearing on behalf of the Insurance Company. None appears for the owner of the vehicle. We had partly allowed the appeal but had kept reasons to be penned later on as the Courts were closing for the Holi Vacations. We now Penn our reasons for allowing the appeal, filed at the behest of claimants who have been put to great injustice by the orders of the ld officers manning the Tribunals, from 2010, while losing sight of the beneficial provisions of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act').

2. After the judgment was dictated we directed the office to upload the same on 14.4.2021. But immediately after directing the judgment to upload, we thought of again going through the judgment for our satisfaction when we read the judgment, unfortunately, while going through the manuscript, we found that there were certain repetitions, the paraphrasing was not proper and therefore, we directed the office not to issue the certified copy and delete the same on 14.4.2021 itself and we have corrected the manuscript again without changing the final result. This was necessary so as to maintain