Judgment H. S. Bedi, J. 1. This order will dispose of F. A. O. No.1360 of 1989 (Pawan Kumar v. Harmail Singh), F. A. O. No.1361 of 1989 (Laxmi Narain V/s. Harmail Singh), f. A. O. No.1362 of 1989 (Des Raj V/s. Harmail Singh), F. A. O. No.1363 of 1989 (Radhe Sham V/s. Harmail Singh), F. A. O. No.116 of 1990 (New India Assurance co. Ltd. V/s. Laxmi Narain), F. A. O. No.117 of 1990 (New India Assurance Co. Ltd. V/s. Radhe Sham), F. A. O. No.118 of 1990 (New India Assurance Co. Ltd. V/s. Pawan kumar) and F. A. O. No.339 of 1990 (New india Assurance Co. Ltd. V/s. Des Raj ). 2. Pawan Kumar, Des Raj, Laxmi Narain and Radhe Sham, who were travelling in car No. RSK 5211, were injured in an accident involving truck No. BHU 5565, being driven by Harmail Singh, respondent no.1, owned by Amar Singh, respondent no.2 and insured with New India Assurance Co. Ltd. , respondent No.3. 3. Four claim petitions were filed by the injured, claiming various sums by way of compensation. The respondents filed their written statements claiming that the accident had not occurred on account of the rash and negligent driving of the truck by its driver, respondent No.1 and it was the driver of the car, Vijay Kumar, who had been driving his vehicle rashly which had led to the accident. 4. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed: (1) Whether the petitioners sustained injuries as a result of rash and negligent driving of truck BHU 5565 driven by respondent No.1? OPP (2) Whether the claimants received injuries due to composite negligence of both the drivers of the truck BHU 5565 respondent No.1 and driver of car RSK 5211 driven by respondent No.4 (Obj. to)? OPP (3) Whether the claimants are entitled to claim compensation in respect of the injuries sustained by them. If so, how much and against whom? OPP (4) Whether the petitions are liable to fail in view of the preliminary objections taken by the respondents in their replies to the petitions? OPR (5) Relief. 5. to)? OPP (3) Whether the claimants are entitled to claim compensation in respect of the injuries sustained by them. If so, how much and against whom? OPP (4) Whether the petitions are liable to fail in view of the preliminary objections taken by the respondents in their replies to the petitions? OPR (5) Relief. 5. Issue Nos.1 and 2 were taken up together and relying on the evidence of the four claimants, who appeared as witnesses and after examining the photographs of the site, the Tribunal concluded that it appeared to be more plausible and possible that the accident had happened in the manner suggested by the claimants and that the car after the accident had been manoeuvred in such a way to show that it was the car driver, who was guilty and was at fault for having caused the accident. The Tribunal then examined the evidence with regard to compensation for the injuries and granted a sum of Rs.1,00,000 to Pawan Kumar, rs.10,000 to Des Raj, Rs.55,000 to Laxmi narain and Rs.40,000 to Radhe Sham by way of compensation. 6. Eight appeals have been filed against the award, four by the claimants seeking the enhancement of the compensation and four by New India Assurance Co. Ltd. , who claimed that in fact nothing was due to the claimants on account of the accident for the reasons already set out above. All the appeals are being disposed of by this judgment. 7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the evidence with their assistance. 8. The Tribunal, on a consideration of the facts and relying not only on the evidence of the four claimants, but also on the probabilities of the case based on the photographs, which had been produced concluded that the story given by the truck driver was not correct and that the accident had in fact happened in the manner suggested by the claimants. A positive finding was given that after the accident the truck driver had not only manoeuvred his vehicle but also the car in a way to show that it was the car that was being driven on the wrong side of the road and that it had rammed into the truck. I, therefore, find absolutely no reason to interfere on the question of negligence. 9. I, therefore, find absolutely no reason to interfere on the question of negligence. 9. Issue No.3 was thereafter taken up by the Tribunal and relying on the medical evidence on record as also the treatment chart of the four injured, it awarded various sums by way of compensation. To my mind, the compensation awarded to the claimants is commensurate with their injuries. It is true that two of the claimants had received serious injuries, for which they have been adequately compensated as has already been noted in the earlier part of this judgment. Pawan Kumar, who was aged 32 years of age at the time of the accident and had suffered fracture of both legs and a broken jaw and that he had also remained in the hospital and on leave for some time. It has also been noted that there had been a shortening of his leg by 11/2" and that the permanent disability had been assessed at 60 per cent. The claimant had also pleaded that he had spent a sum of rs.25,000 on his treatment. This amount had been awarded by the Tribunal. A sum of Rs.25,000 had been awarded for future treatment and a sum of Rs.50,000 on account of the permanent disability, making a total of Rs.1,00,000. Likewise, Laxmi narain had suffered a fracture of his forearm and left knee and the Tribunal assessed his disability at 40 per cent. He had been awarded a sum of Rs.55,000 by way of compensation. Des Raj, who was 63 years of age at the time of accident, had received a slight injury on the right arm, for which he has been awarded compensation of rs.10,000 whereas Radhe Sham suffered fracture of the hip bone for which he had been given a sum of Rs.40,000. I am, therefore, of the opinion that there is no merit in both sets of appeals. They are accordingly dismissed. Appeals dismissed.