One Sharik Rashid Wani on 16-07-1997, while traveling in Motor Vehicle bearing Registration mark and No. 4493 JK01 on Anantnag Kulgam road, was flung out of the vehicle at Kanipora Kulgam and run over next moment by the very vehicle, while the vehicle was driven by driver Respondent No. 2, rashly/negligently. The life of this young boy aged 21 years, was thus suddenly put to an end by the vehicular accident. His parents preferred claim before MACT Anantnag. The Tribunal after summoning the parties, providing them opportunity to complete pleadings and lead evidence, on appreciation of evidence, after hearing the parties allowed the compensation of Rs. 05,86,000 with 9% simple interest P.A from the date of institution of the petition till actual realization to mother and father in the ratio of 5/6 : 1/6. The compensation was awarded against the owner and driver, parties to the petition jointly and severally though in the first instance the award amount was recoverable from Insurer respondent No.3 with liberty to the Insurer to realize the same in equal shares from owner and driver jointly and severally. This award dated 24.2.2003 is under challenge in two appeals filed by the owner Respondent No.2 and the Insurer Respondent No.3. 2. As many as five issues are struck in the claim petition. Witnesses have been examined and the evidence is led by the parties. On appreciation of the evidence upon hearing the counsel for the parties, the Tribunal has found that at the material time when the accident in question took place the Driver of the vehicle was driving the vehicle rashly/negligently which resulted in the death of Sharik Rashid Wani claimants son. The Driver was not holding a valid license as the license of the Driver-Respondent No. 3 was found invalid and fake. The owner of the vehicle -respondent No.2, had failed to make necessary enquiries and verification and did not assure himself of the validity of license, while engaging the Driver and allowing him to drive the vehicle. Both owner and the driver having thereby infracted the condition of the policy, were liable for the compensation. Tribunal assessed the monthly income of deceased aged 21, engaged in some business, as Rs.6000 and after deducting 1/3 for his personal expenses, calculated his monthly income as Rs.4000. This amount is adjudicated as payment towards dependency of claimants by the deceased. Both owner and the driver having thereby infracted the condition of the policy, were liable for the compensation. Tribunal assessed the monthly income of deceased aged 21, engaged in some business, as Rs.6000 and after deducting 1/3 for his personal expenses, calculated his monthly income as Rs.4000. This amount is adjudicated as payment towards dependency of claimants by the deceased. On applying multiplier of 12, the figure arrived is 5,76,00. Besides funeral expenses is assessed at of Rs.10,000. The amount is accordingly awarded. The interest has been allowed @ 9% from the date of presentation of the claim petition. 3. The counsel for the claimants / respondents has raised a preliminary objections to the maintainability of the Appeal on the ground that the Insurer to the extent of quantum of compensation and negligence of the driver cannot challenge the Appeal as the provisions of Section 149 (2) read with Section 1988 Act are not complied with. The application moved by the Insurer to contest the claim on merits before the Tribunal has been rejected by the Tribunal vide its order dated 29.7.2002. The Tribunal has recorded a positive finding against the insurer that there is no collusion between the claimants and the person against whom the claim is made. Besides, the person against whom the claim is made has contested the Claim bonafide and on merits of the claim. The application was moved after parties evidence was closed and not at the stage when insured lead his evidence. 4. For non applicability of pre-requisite statutory conditions and in the context of Section 149 (2) of M.V.Act, the Insurance Company has a limited defense and in any case the quantum of compensation on merits cannot be challenged in appeal by Insurer. In the facts and circumstances of the case it is not permissible to the Insurance Company to file Appeal to question the quantum of compensation and negligence of the driver. 5. In National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nicolleta Rohtagi (AIR 2002 SC. 3350), it is observed: "18. The aforesaid provisions show two aspects. In the facts and circumstances of the case it is not permissible to the Insurance Company to file Appeal to question the quantum of compensation and negligence of the driver. 5. In National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nicolleta Rohtagi (AIR 2002 SC. 3350), it is observed: "18. The aforesaid provisions show two aspects. Firstly, that the Insurer has only statutory defences available as provided in Sub Section (2) of Section 149 of 1988 Act, and secondly, where the Tribunal is of the view that there is a collusion between the claimant and the insured, or the insured does not contest the claim, the insurer can be made a party and on such impleadment the insurer shall have all defences available to it. Then comes the provisions of Section 173 which provides for an appeal against the award given by the Tribunal. Under Section 173 any person aggrieved by an award is entitled to prefer an appeal to the High Court. Very often the question has arisen as to whether an insurer is entitled to file an appeal on the grounds available to the insured when either there is a collusion between the claimants and the insured or when the insured has not filed an appeal before the High Court questioning the quantum of compensation. The consistent view of this Court had been that the insurer has no right to file an appeal to challenge the quantum of compensation or finding of the Tribunal as regards the negligence or contributory negligence of offending vehicle." (See also Ruli Ram v. State of Haryana, AIR 2002 SC 3360 Para (31)) 6. Yet this aspect of the case falls into insignificance, in as much as, the insured owner of the vehicle has filed an Appeal questioning the award on merits. In this clubbed Statutory Appeal, the merits of award qua quantum of compensation has to be gone into I and the premises/ basis of the award, besides legality thereof is to be determined. 7. Further challenge to the award by the Insurance Company/Appellant, based as it is on case law is that even if the Insurance Company is to award compensation in the first instance, yet the Insurance Company should not and cannot be driven to separate proceedings for realization of the amount ordered by the trial court. 7. Further challenge to the award by the Insurance Company/Appellant, based as it is on case law is that even if the Insurance Company is to award compensation in the first instance, yet the Insurance Company should not and cannot be driven to separate proceedings for realization of the amount ordered by the trial court. This aspect of the matter will be dealt ) with a little latter, after first the Appeal filed by the owner challenging the impugned award on the merits is taken up for consideration. 8. In this Appeal (CIMA 51/2003) the Appellant (Ali Mohd) has contested the quantum of compensation awarded to the claimants, father and mother of the deceased. He has also joined issues on the question of his liability, even if the driving license is not valid in much as it is alleged that at the time when he engaged the Driver he had bonafidely made enquiries and verified that the Driver was holding genuine license. Further, it is solicited that the trial court has not properly appreciated evidence and conclusion of the Tribunal and its findings on the issues is based on misreading and improper appreciation of evidence. 9. Let us take up the Appeal 51/2003 of the owner in the first instance to find out if the findings on issues raised and matters concerning the award of compensation are based on evidence and whether the evidence is properly read and appreciated. Issues concerning driving of the Vehicle negligently/rashly at the material date, time and place by Shehnaz Ahmed Allie Respondent No.1 to the claim petition; whether he was holding a valid and legal driving license at that time; whether the terms and conditions of the Insurance policy stand violated in this case; whether, other conditions applying the amount of compensation to which claimants are entitled is just and proper and what is the effect of violation of the terms and conditions of insurance agreement on this case have been raised. On these issues claimants examined five witnesses, besides the claimant Abdul Rashid co-petitioner has also tendered his statement as his own witness. Appellant/respondent No.2 to the claim petition and owner of the vehicle tendered his own statement and besides examined two witnesses in court. 10. Respondent No.3 Insurance Company, Appellant in the other Appeal has also examined its Assistant Administrative Officer as its own witness. These depositions are on record. Appellant/respondent No.2 to the claim petition and owner of the vehicle tendered his own statement and besides examined two witnesses in court. 10. Respondent No.3 Insurance Company, Appellant in the other Appeal has also examined its Assistant Administrative Officer as its own witness. These depositions are on record. The Tribunal has discussed and analyzed deposition of each witness. 11. PW 2 Ghulam Rasool Thoker, PW.3 Hamid Ullah Thoker and PW Basharat Ahmad Bhat have unequivocally given a graphic account of the vehicular accident resulting in the death of claimants son, Shariq Rashid Wani. Besides, injury-cum-death certificate, seizure memos, and relevant police report also show the happening of the accident. The respondents have not refuted that the passenger vehicle boarded by the deceased met with the accident at Sarnu, and the vehicle over turned and deceased was thrown out and crushed by the vehicle. The facts and circumstances do preponderate and show the negligence/ rashness resulting in the accident and vehicular death of Shariq Rashid Wani. 12. It is also not in dispute that respondent No.1 Shehnaz Ahmed Allie was driving vehicle at the material time when the accident took place. Respondents witness Mohd. Ayoob, RW 1, Manzoor Ahmad RW 2 and the owner respondent Ali Mohd Ganai have unequivocally stated that Shehnaz Ahmed Allie was driving the vehicle when accident took place, resulting in the death of Shariq Rashid Wani. Even the record also points to the same circumstance. Mohd Amin Shah, Asstt. Administrative Officer of Insurance Company, respondent No.3, has also admitted and stated that Shehnaz Ahmed Allaie, Respondent No.1, was driving vehicle on the material time. In view of this unrebuted and unrefuted evidence, the only conclusion is that Shehnaz Ahmed Allie was driving vehicle and that too negligently/ rashly. Then, the further question is whether driver Shehnaz Ahmed Allie was having a valid and legal driving license and what effect finding either way on this issue, has on this case. 13. RW 3. Mohd Amin Shah, Asstt. Administrative Officer National Insurance Company has stated that the vehicle was covered by valid and subsisting Insurance cover issued by the National Insurance Company on the material date. The policy covered third party risk. The policy interalia contained a condition that the driver of the vehicle must have a valid licence with proper endorsement as required under the provisions of Motor Vehicle Act. The policy covered third party risk. The policy interalia contained a condition that the driver of the vehicle must have a valid licence with proper endorsement as required under the provisions of Motor Vehicle Act. This condition in the Insurance Policy if violated absolves Insurance Company of the liability and in that case it is not to pay compensation/ damages for death/ injuries occasioned by the vehicular accident. 14. After the occurrence came to the knowledge of the Insurance Company and claim raised, the Insurance Company made enquiries. The licence of the driver was purportedly issued by RTO Srinagar. The matter was taken up with the RTO Srinagar. The RTO Srinagar checked and verified the licence and its endorsements and found that the licence is fake one. The licencing authority, Motor Vehicle Department Srinagar Kashmir has vide its endorsement No.5334/RTOK dated 15.12.1997 issued a certificate to state that the driving license 67410/k of the driver Shehnaz Ahmad Allie respondent, is neither entered in its record nor issued by the license authority. Photostat copy of the driving licence is also available on record. This certificate is proved by Mohd Ashraf Clerk of the RTO, who has deposed before the Tribunal. This witness has specifically stated that the license issued is not entered and found in the licensing authorities records and office. He has specifically explained with details as to how this Driving license is fake and forged. The certificate and statements of the witnesses (including that of Assistant Administrative Officer) is unrebutted. The driver has not led any evidence to show that the driving licence in question is valid and legal. The owner has not also led any evidence to show otherwise. In such circumstances the Tribunal is justified to come to the conclusion to hold that the driving license of the driver Respondent No.1, is invalid and fake. 15. In the circumstances as above, the condition of the Insurance Policy that the vehicle is to be driven by the insured or a person with his consent and permission, who holds legal and effective driving license as per requirements of Motor Vehicle Act, stands violated. Then the question close and akin to the above proposition is whether the owner of the offending vehicle, satisfied himself that the driving licence of his driver Respondent No.1, is ex-facie in place and whether Respondent No.1 is driving the vehicle confidently. Then the question close and akin to the above proposition is whether the owner of the offending vehicle, satisfied himself that the driving licence of his driver Respondent No.1, is ex-facie in place and whether Respondent No.1 is driving the vehicle confidently. The Tribunal on appreciation of evidence has found that the owner of the vehicle respondent No.2 did not take any step to verify from the concerned office or persons, the validity/endorsement of the licence even when the forged license was shown to have been obtained at Srinagar. Even in the written statement, the owner has not put up a case or plea that he believed the driver was having a valid driving licence and that he has satisfied himself about the correctness or got it verified from the concerned office during the course of the employment by him of respondent No.1 as Driver. In fact the respondent No.2 at a late stage only moved application for raising an issue as to the effect of the invalid license on the facts and circumstances of this case. Obviously, in absence of pleading and in the face of the evidence in particular, certificate of the RTO and the deposition of the concerned witnesses from RTO office and Insurance Coy, it cannot be said that the owner observed the minimum requirements of satisfying himself about the license. The assertion of the owner that he was not aware or that he did not endorse that the driver was not having a valid license in the face of probabilities of the case, brought to the fore by overwhelming evidence on record, is not to be believed. The defence appears to have been put forth to shift insureds liability for compensation and damages on account of the vehicular accident in question. 16. There is no reason to take a different view than the one taken by the Tribunal. The evidence/documents on record point to the only view taken by the Tribunal in holding the owner and the driver liable for compensation/ damages. The probabilities of the case preponderate to show that the insured has violated the condition of the Insurance policy. 17. The liability of the Insured as above is intact and not displaced least on record. The question of payment of just compensation has to be answered in the light of judgments of the Apex Court. The probabilities of the case preponderate to show that the insured has violated the condition of the Insurance policy. 17. The liability of the Insured as above is intact and not displaced least on record. The question of payment of just compensation has to be answered in the light of judgments of the Apex Court. Even case laws provides for the mode and manner of recovery of the compensation, in cases like the one at hand. 18. In National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Swaran Singh and others, AIR 2004 SC 1531 at para 105, the court has observed: "..........(ix) The claims tribunal constitute under Section 165 read with Section 168 is empowered to adjudicate all claims in respect of the accidents involving death or of bodily injury or damage to property of third party arising in use of motor vehicle. The said power of the tribunal is not restricted to decide the claims inter se between claimant or claimants on one side and insured, insurer and driver on the other. In the course of adjudicating the claim for compensation and to decide the availability of defense or defenses to the insurer, the Tribunal has necessarily the power and jurisdiction to decide disputes inter se between insurer and the insured. The decision rendered on the claims and disputes inter se between the insurer and insured in the course of adjudication of claim for compensation by the claimants and the award made thereon is enforceable and executable in the same manner as provided in Section 174 of the Act for enforcement and execution of the award in favour of the claimants. (x) Where on adjudication of the claim under the Act the tribunal arrives at a conclusion that the insurer has satisfactorily proved its defence in accordance with the provisions of Sections 149(2) read with sub section (7), as interpreted by this Court above, the Tribunal can direct that the insurer is liable to be reimbursed by the insured for the compensation and other amounts which it has been compelled to pay to the third party under the award of the tribunal. Such determination of claim by the Tribunal will be enforceable and the money found due to the insurer from the insured will be recoverable on a certificate issued by the tribunal to the Collector in the same manner under Section 174 of the Act as arrears as land revenue. Such determination of claim by the Tribunal will be enforceable and the money found due to the insurer from the insured will be recoverable on a certificate issued by the tribunal to the Collector in the same manner under Section 174 of the Act as arrears as land revenue. The certificate will be issued for the recovery as arrears of land revenue only if, as required by sub-section (3) of Section 168 of the Act the Insured fails to deposit the amount awarded in favour of the insurer within thirty days from the date of announcement of the award by the Tribunal. 19. In Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanjappan and others, AIR 2004, SC 1630 (1632 Para 8) the court has observed: -- "8. Therefore, while setting aside the judgment of the High Court we direct in terms of what has been stated in Baljit Kaurs case (Supra) that the insurer shall pay the quantum of compensation fixed by the Tribunal, about which there was no dispute raised, to the respondents- claimants within three months from today. For the purpose of recovering the same from the insured, the insurer shall not be required to file a suit. It may initiate a proceeding before the concerned. Executing Court as if the dispute between the insurer and the owner was the subject-matter of determination before the Tribunal and the issue is decided against the owner and in favour of the insurer. Before release of the amount the insured, owner of the vehicle shall be issued a notice and he shall be required to furnish security for the entire amount which the insurer will pay to the claimants. The offending vehicle shall be attached, as a part of the security. If necessity arises the Executing Court shall take assistance of the concerned Regional Transport authority. The Executing Court shall pass appropriate orders in accordance with law as to the manner in which the insured, owner of the vehicle shall make payment to the insurer. In case there is any default it shall be open to the Executing Court to direct realization by disposal of the securities to be furnished or from any other property or properties of the owner of the vehicle, the insured. The appeal is disposed of in the aforesaid terms with no order as to costs." 20. In case there is any default it shall be open to the Executing Court to direct realization by disposal of the securities to be furnished or from any other property or properties of the owner of the vehicle, the insured. The appeal is disposed of in the aforesaid terms with no order as to costs." 20. The appellant/owner has contended quantum of compensation assessed by the Tribunal is on higher side not based on record. This aspect of the case has to be examined in the face of the evidence and in the legal background on the question of assessment of just compensation. 21. One of the claimant Abdul Rashid Wani, father of the deceased has stated that his deceased son was earning between Rs.15000 to Rs.16000 Per month as he was engaged in sale of Kiryana and General Items. The deceased had taken shop on rental for doing the said business. He was assisted by two other engaged workers on the shop and in the business. This statement of Abdul Rashid Wani is supported by depositions of Basharat Ahmad Bhat and Akbar Hussain, the two witnesses examined by the claimant. The age of Sharik Rashid Wani is testified/ stated to be 21 Years on the date of death. He had promise and potential for the future as a very successful businessman and would have progressed well in his business dealings keeping in mind that he was successful even at a very young age. He was earning handsomely and some where in the range of Rs.15000 to 16000. This evidence is not rebutted by any of the respondents or their witnesses. It is also in evidence that deceased who was the eldest child of his parents is survived by his father and mother, parents and two younger brothers and one sister. Deceased is also deposed to be the sole bread earner of the family. 22. On the evidence, the Tribunal on guess in the context of circumstances and facts appearing on record, has taken the monthly income of the deceased as 6000, out of which the Tribunal has ear-marked 1/3, for his personal expenses, leaving 2/3 as dependency for the family. 23. Having regard to the age of the deceased a multiplier of 12 has been applied. Just compensation worked out on the annual dependency is worked out as Rs.5,76,000/ = {(6000/-- 2000) x 12 x 12 }. 23. Having regard to the age of the deceased a multiplier of 12 has been applied. Just compensation worked out on the annual dependency is worked out as Rs.5,76,000/ = {(6000/-- 2000) x 12 x 12 }. In addition to this compensation, Rs. 10,000 is given as funeral expenses. In all Rs.5,86,000 is awarded as compensation with 9% simple interest per annum from the date of application namely 6.9.97, till realization or actual payment. The father and mother have been awarded the compensation in the ratio of 5/6 : 1/6. As noted else where, Insurance Company cannot question the quantum of compensation but all the same the quantum of compensation is questioned and is contested by the owner in his Appeal. The counsel Mr. G.Q.Bhat, for the owner has submitted that the petitioner was a student and was not an earning hand and the record finding of the Tribunal as to the amount earned and dependency is not correct. However, the submission of the counsel is bereft of any merit as already observed, respondents have not lead any evidence thereto and the claimants alone have led evidence. Respondents clients of Mr. Bhat have not even tendered an iota of evidence, either to rebut the weight of the evidence led by the claimant regarding the earnings and income of the deceased and the amount contributed by him towards the dependency of his parents and other family members. There is no evidence or material on record even to put a question mark on the cogency and credibility of evidence examined/ tendered by claimants. Even no basis is laid in the pleadings for the above contra stand of the respondent owner of the vehicle. Without specific reference the Tribunal has worked out the compensation on the structured formula as given in the IInd schedule read with Section 163 (a) of the M.V.Act. 24. As per IInd schedule in case of a victim who dies in age range of 20 to 25 years, the prescribed multiplier is 17 and in our case the Tribunal has applied just a multiplier of 12. The contention of the Insured counsel is that having regard to the facts and circumstances of this case, the applicable multiplier should have been based on the age of parents, rather than the age of the victim. The multiplier here has reference to age of parents. The contention of the Insured counsel is that having regard to the facts and circumstances of this case, the applicable multiplier should have been based on the age of parents, rather than the age of the victim. The multiplier here has reference to age of parents. Even if the matter is approached from the standpoint that not only the age of deceased is relevant but even the age of claimants is relevant in the event of parents being claimants, the multiplier of 12 cannot said to be in any case on higher side. The age of father at the time of accident is probably as seen from record 49 to 50 years and the age of mother is less than the age of the victims father. Even in such a case with claimants age somewhere 50 years, the multiplier of 13 is adopted normally. There is hardly any requirement to refer to plethora of case law on the subject. 25. In the totality of facts and circumstances, in the backdrop of the evidence led, evaluated and referred above, it cannot be said that the compensation assessed is not based on appreciated evidence and that the compensation is not just. Ponderables and circumstances like the promise and possibility of the deceased having earned decently, contribution to parents and family (dependency), expectations of life and future prospect of earning graph having moved up, have been all considered in conjunction with the young age of the victim deceased and the age of the parents/ claimants, while assessing, determining and awarding compensation by the Tribunal. 26. Viewed thus, the assessment and award of compensation appears just and proper and is not shown vitiated or bad in law. This brings us to the question as to who among the respondents is to pay the awarded compensation and the manner and mode of realization of the compensation amount. 27. As already observed, that the Tribunal has found the licence of the Driver as invalid and fake. The Tribunal has also found that the owner has not taken steps to verify the endorsement on the licence and satisfy himself as to genuineness of the licence. The awareness of the respondents insured/ owner and Driver of the circumstances accompanying invalid and fake licence is also recorded by the Tribunal. The Tribunal has also found that the owner has not taken steps to verify the endorsement on the licence and satisfy himself as to genuineness of the licence. The awareness of the respondents insured/ owner and Driver of the circumstances accompanying invalid and fake licence is also recorded by the Tribunal. In such circumstances, the owner could not avoid the liability as there is breach of Section 149(2) (a) Sub clause (ii) of MVA. The amount is in the last analysis recoverable from the insured who is found guilty of breach of condition of the Insurance policy. This finding of the Tribunal as stated above is based on un/rebutted and uncontroverted evidence. `Preponderance of probabilities, the norm of proof applicable in civil matters like the one at hand supports and sustains the finding of the Tribunal. 28. Even in such a case, the insurer is to pay quantum of compensation fixed by the Tribunal to the respondents/ claimants in the first instance. The compensation on determination of the claim by the Tribunal as above, is thereafter enforceable against the insurer and the amount found due to the insurer has to be recovered from the insured. The amount can be recovered on a certificate issued by the Tribunal. The Tribunal is competent to decide the claims interse the claimants or claimants on one side and the Insurer Insured and the Driver on the other. All disputes between insurer and Insured owner/driver can be addressed to and competently decided by the Tribunal and for the purpose the insurer has not to approach any other forum or resort to some other proceedings. 29. In NIC Co. Ltd. v. Swarn Singh, AIR 2004, SC: 1531, (1558), it is laid as an operable direction, that the determination of claim by the Tribunal in the circumstances, as in this case, is enforceable and executable in the same manner as provided in Section 174 of the Motor Vehicle Act for enforcement and execution of the award in favour of the claimants, after certificate is issued by the Tribunal to the Collector for recovery of the awarded compensation. The amount is recoverable by the Collector as arrears of land revenue. The amount is recoverable by the Collector as arrears of land revenue. The certificate is to be issued after insured failes to deposit the amount awarded in favour of the insurer within 30 days from the date of the announcement of the award of the Tribunal as laid down by Section 168(3) of the M.V.Act. 30. In Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanjappan and Ors., AIR 2004 SC 1630, the Supreme Court has gone ahead of what is stated in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swaran Singh (Supra) by laying down that in the first instance the Insurer shall pay the quantum of compensation fixed by the Tribunal and for recovery of this amount the insurer is not required to file a suit. Insurer may launch execution proceedings as if the dispute between the Insurer and the owner is the subject of determination before the Tribunal and same is decided against the owner and in favour of the insurer. Prior to release of the amount by the Insurer, the insured/owner is to be issued notice by the insurer for furnishing security for the whole amount which the Insurer is to pay to the claimant. The offending vehicle is to be attached as part of the payment. The executing court shall pass required orders regarding payment to the Insurer. In case of default the executing court can release the amount by disposal of the securities furnished or from any other property or properties of the owner of the offending vehicle involved in accident. 31. The impugned award of the Tribunal when put on the touch stone of the law as laid down by the Apex court as referred above, the award of compensation to claimants is to be paid in the first instance by Insurer, and latter to be recovered from the insured in the manner and mode, as indicated above. 32. In result, for the afordesaid view of the matter, the impugned judgment and award shall be deemed to be modified to the extent that the amount realizable from the Insurance Company respondent No.3, shall be further realized and recovered by the Insurer Company from the Insured owner Respondent No.1 and Driver Respondent No.2 in the manner and mode indicated above. 33. In the aforesaid view of the matter, there is no merit in Civil Appeal filed by the Insured owner (CIMA No:51/2003) which is dismissed. 33. In the aforesaid view of the matter, there is no merit in Civil Appeal filed by the Insured owner (CIMA No:51/2003) which is dismissed. The other Appeal (CIMA No.52/2003) filed by National Insurance Company is accepted to the extent indicated qua manner and mode in which, awarded compensation (confirmed in Appeal as above) shall be recovered/ realized from the insured owner. In all other respects Appeal is dismissed. Disposed of.