JUDGMENT Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J. All these five appeals are outcome of a motor vehicular accident, which was allegedly caused by the driver, namely Shri Manoj Kumar, while driving Maruti Car bearing registration No. HP- 51-3461, rashly and negligently on 23rd October, 2006, at about 6.30 A.M., near Wangtoo, District Kinnaur, in which some of the occupants of the car, including the driver, sustained injuries and succumbed to the injuries. The occupant, namely Shri Bhagi Rath, sustained injuries. Therefore, I deem it proper to determine all these appeals by a common judgment. 2. The dependents of the deceased, namely Shri Berfia Ram, Shri Jagat Ram, Shri Babu Ram and Shri Surat Ram, filed claim petitions, being M.A.C. Petition No. 38-S/2 of 2008/06, titled as Smt. Batu Devi & others versus Sh. Satyen Sharma & others; M.A.C. Petition No. 39-S/2 of 2008/06, titled as Smt. Asha Devi & others versus Sh. Satyen Sharma & others; M.A.C. Petition No. 40-S/2 of 2008/06, titled as Smt. Bantu Devi & another versus Sh. Satyen Sharma & others and M.A.C. Petition No. 41-S/2 of 2008/06, titled as Smt. Jamana Devi & others versus Sh. Satyen Sharma & others, for grant of compensation to the tune of Rs. 10,00,000/-, Rs. 15,00,000/-, Rs. 10,00,000/- and Rs. 15,00,000/-, respectively, as per the break-ups given in the respective claim petitions. 3. The injured, namely Shri Bhagi Rath, filed claim petition, being M.A.C. Petition No. 46-S/2 of 2008/06, for grant of compensation to the tune of Rs. 10,00,000/- as per the break-ups given in the claim petition. 4. M.A.C. Petitions No. 40-S/2 of 2008/06, 41-S/2 of 2008/06 and 46-S/2 of 2008/06 came to be decided by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-II, Solan, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal”) on 28th August, 2009, and M.A.C. Petitions No. 38/S/2 of 2008/06 and 39-S/2 of 2008/06 came to be decided by the Tribunal) on 5th March, 2010, whereby compensation came to be granted in favour of the claimants (hereinafter referred to as “the impugned awards”). 5. The owner-insured, the insurer and the legal representatives of the deceased driver of the offending car resisted the claim petitions on the grounds taken in the respective memo of objections. 6. The Tribunal, on the pleadings of the parties, framed six issues, which are common, though separately, in all the claim petitions except in M.A.C. Petition No. 46-S/2 of 2008/06. The owner-insured, the insurer and the legal representatives of the deceased driver of the offending car resisted the claim petitions on the grounds taken in the respective memo of objections. 6. The Tribunal, on the pleadings of the parties, framed six issues, which are common, though separately, in all the claim petitions except in M.A.C. Petition No. 46-S/2 of 2008/06. Therefore, it is apt to reproduce the issues framed in Claim Petition No. 38-S/2 of 2008/06 herein : “1. Whether the death of Berfia Ram was caused on account of the rash and negligent driving by the deceased Manoj Kumar as alleged? OPP 2. If issue No. 1 is proved in affirmative, whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation, if so the amount thereof and by whom to be paid? OPP 3. Whether the vehicle has been sold by respondent No. 1 to the deceased Manoj Kumar. If so the effect thereof? OPR-1 4. Whether the petition is not maintainable against the respondent No.2? OPR-2 5. Whether the deceased was not having valid and effective driving licence at the time of the accident and the vehicle was being plied in violation of the insurance policy as alleged? If so the effect thereof? OPR-2. 6. Relief.” 7. In M.A.C. Petition No. 46-S/2 of 2008/06, the following issues came to be framed : “1. Whether the petitioner had suffered injuries on account of rash and negligent driving by the deceased Manoj Kumar as alleged? OPP 2. If issue No. 1 is proved in affirmative, whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation, if so the amount thereof and by whom to be paid? OPP 3. Whether the vehicle has been sold by the respondent No. 1 to the deceased Manoj Kumar. If so the effect thereof? OPR-1 4. Whether the petition is not maintainable against the respondent No. 2 as alleged? OPR-2 5. Whether the deceased was not having valid and effective driving licence at the time of the accident and the vehicle was being plied in violation of the insurance policy as alleged? If so the effect thereof? OPR-2. 6. Relief.” 8. The parties have led evidence and have placed on record various documents in support of their claim petitions. After scanning the evidence, oral as well as documentary, all the claim petitions were granted in terms of the impugned awards. 9. If so the effect thereof? OPR-2. 6. Relief.” 8. The parties have led evidence and have placed on record various documents in support of their claim petitions. After scanning the evidence, oral as well as documentary, all the claim petitions were granted in terms of the impugned awards. 9. The appellant-insurer has questioned the impugned awards in all the five claim petitions by the medium of these appeals. 10. It is apt to record herein that the claimants, the owner- insured and the legal representatives of deceased driver have not questioned the impugned awards on any count, thus, have attained finality so far it relate to them. 11. The insurer-appellant has not denied the factum of accident and the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the offending car. Thus, there is no dispute about the driving of the offending car by its driver in a rash and negligent manner. 12. The only question pressed into service by the insurer-appellant in all the five appeals is that the occupants of the offending car were gratuitous passengers. 13. I deem it proper to record herein that the Tribunal, after examining the evidence, oral as well as documentary, came to the conclusion that the deceased and the injured were the occupants of the offending car, thus, were not the gratuitous passengers. 14. Admittedly, the offending vehicle was a private vehicle, i.e. Maruti 800, its seating capacity was 4 + 1 and was insured with the appellant. Learned counsel for the appellant-insurer frankly conceded that it is a fact that the insurance policy is a package policy and the deceased/injured were the occupants of the said vehicle. The insurance policy stands proved and exhibited as Ext. RW-1/B in M.A.C. Petition No. 40-S/2 of 2008/06 (subject matter of FAO No. 560 of 2009). 15. The insurer has failed to prove that the deceased/injured were travelling in the offending car as gratuitous passengers. Admittedly and as per the pleadings of the claimants read with the evidence on the file, they were travelling in the offending car as occupants of the car, were covered by the said insurance policy. 16. I have gone through the insurance policy which, on the face of it is a “package policy”, is an eye opener for the appellant. It is apt to reproduce relevant portion of the insurance policy, Ex. 16. I have gone through the insurance policy which, on the face of it is a “package policy”, is an eye opener for the appellant. It is apt to reproduce relevant portion of the insurance policy, Ex. RW- 1/B in M.A.C. Petition No. 40-S/2 of 2008/06, herein : “263100 Liability Only Policy for Zone B Private Car …........................................... LIMITS OF LIABILITY : under Section II-I (i) of the policy – Death or or bodily injury – Such amount as is necessary to meet the requirements of the Motor Vehicle Act 1988. Under Section II-I (ii) of the policy – Damage to third Party Property – Rs. 750,000.00 Deductible underv Sec-I Rs. 0.00 (Emphasis added)” 17. Admittedly, the deceased/injured were occupants of the offending vehicle. The question is - whether “Package Policy” of insurance covers liability of the occupants of the vehicle? 18. The learned counsel for the appellant was asked to explain and thrash out how the insurance company is not liable, failed to do so. The recent circulars/ guidelines issued by the IRDA dated 16.11.2009 and 3.12.2009 were also brought to his notice mention of which is made in National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Balakrishnan and another, reported in 2012 AIR (SCW) 6286. 19. Learned counsel for the appellant frankly conceded that in terms of judgment (supra) read with circulars issued, claim of the occupants is covered and appellant is liable. However, in order to record findings, I deem it proper to discuss the issue. 20. Admittedly, as discussed hereinabove, copy of the policy is on the record, which has not been discussed by the Tribunal. 21. The Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority (IRDA) has laid down some guidelines. In terms of that guidelines, the insurer cannot resist the claim petition against the occupants of the vehicle, whose risk is covered in terms of the policy. This issue came up for consideration before the High Court of Delhi in a case titled as Yashpal Luthra and another versus United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and another, reported in 2011 ACJ 1415, and all these guidelines were discussed. 22. The Apex Court in the Balakrishnan's case (supra), discussed the purpose and concept of 'Comprehensive Policy' / 'Package Policy' and 'Act policy' and held that 'Comprehensive Policy'/'Package Policy' covers occupant of the insured vehicle, third party and the owner-insured also. Ltd. and another, reported in 2011 ACJ 1415, and all these guidelines were discussed. 22. The Apex Court in the Balakrishnan's case (supra), discussed the purpose and concept of 'Comprehensive Policy' / 'Package Policy' and 'Act policy' and held that 'Comprehensive Policy'/'Package Policy' covers occupant of the insured vehicle, third party and the owner-insured also. In this judgment, the Apex Court has also discussed the guidelines/policy made by the competent authority, which was issued vide circular M.V. No. 1 of 1978. It is apt to reproduce paras 15 to 18, 20 and 21 of the judgment herein : “15.................. On a perusal of the aforesaid paragraph, it is clear as crystal that the decisions that have been referred to in Bhagyalakshmi (supra) involved only “Act Policies”. The Bench felt that the matter would be different if the Tariff Advisory Committee seeks to enforce its decision in regard to coverage of third party risk which would include an occupant in a vehicle. It is worth noting that the Bench referred to certain decisions of Delhi High Court and Madras High Court and thought it appropriate to refer the matter to a larger Bench. Be it noted, in the said case, the Court was dealing with comprehensive policy which is also called a package policy. In that context, in the earlier part of the judgment, the Bench had stated thus :- “The policy in question is a package policy. The contract of insurance if given its face value covers the risk not only of a third party but also of persons travelling in the car including the owner thereof. The question is as to whether the policy in question is a comprehensive policy or only an Act policy.” 16. Thus, it is quite vivid that the Bench had made a distinction between the “Act policy” and “comprehensive policy/package policy”. We respectfully concur with the said distinction. The crux of the matter is what would be the liability of the insurer if the policy is a “comprehensive/package policy”. We are absolutely conscious that the matter has been referred to a larger Bench, but, as is evident, the Bench has also observed that it would depend upon the view of the Tariff Advisory Committee pertaining to enforcement of its decision to cover the liability of an occupant in a vehicle in a “comprehensive/package policy” regard being had to the contract of insurance. 17. 17. At this stage, it is apposite to note that when the decision in Bhagyalakshmi was rendered, a decision of High Court of Delhi dealing with the view of the Tariff Advisory Committee in respect of “comprehensive/ package policy” had not come into the field. We think it apt to refer to the same as it deals with certain factual position which can be of assistance. The High Court of Delhi in Yashpal Luthra and Anr. v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and Another [2011 ACJ 1415], after recording the evidence of the competent authority of Tariff Advisory Committee (TAC) and Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority (IRDA), reproduced a circular dated 16.11.2009 issued by IRDA to CEOs of all the Insurance Companies restating the factual position relating to the liability of Insurance companies in respect of a pillion rider on a two-wheeler and occupants in a private car under the comprehensive/package policy. The relevant portion of the circular which has been reproduced by the High Court is as follows :- “IRDA Ref: IRDA/NL/CIR/F&U/073/11/2009 16.11.2009 To CEOs of all general insurance companies Re: Liability of insurance companies in respect of occupants of a Private car and pillion rider on a two-wheeler under Standard Motor Package Policy (also called Comprehensive Policy). Insurers' attention is drawn to wordings of Section (II) 1 (ii) of Standard Motor Package Policy (also called Comprehensive Policy) for private car and two-wheeler under the (erstwhile) India Motor Tariff. For convenience the relevant provisions are reproduced hereunder :- 'Section II - Liability to Third Parties 1. Insurers' attention is drawn to wordings of Section (II) 1 (ii) of Standard Motor Package Policy (also called Comprehensive Policy) for private car and two-wheeler under the (erstwhile) India Motor Tariff. For convenience the relevant provisions are reproduced hereunder :- 'Section II - Liability to Third Parties 1. Subject to the limits of liabilities as laid down in the Schedule hereto the company will indemnify the insured in the event of an accident caused by or arising out of the use of the insured vehicle against all sums which the insured shall become legally liable to pay in respect of - (i) death or bodily injury to any person including occupants carried in the vehicle (provided such occupants are not carried for hire or reward) but except so far as it is necessary to meet the requirements of Motor Vehicles Act, the Company shall not be liable where such death or injury arises out of and in the course of employment of such person by the insured.' It is further brought to the attention of insurers that the above provisions are in line with the following circulars earlier issued by the TAC on the subject : (i) Circular M.V. No. l of 1978 - dated 18th March, 1978 (regarding occupants carried in Private Car) effective from 25th March, 1977. (ii) MOT/GEN/10 dated 2nd June, 1986 (regarding pillion riders in a two-wheeler) effective from the date of the circular. The above circulars make it clear that the insured liability in respect of occupant(s) carried in a private car and pillion rider carried on two-wheeler is covered under the Standard Motor Package Policy. A copy each of the above circulars is enclosed for ready reference. The Authority vide circular No. 066/IRDA/F&U/ Mar-08 dated March 26, 2008 issued under File & Use Guidelines has reiterated that pending further orders the insurers shall not vary the coverage, terms and conditions wording, warranties, clauses and endorsements in respect of covers that were under the erstwhile tariffs. Further the Authority, vide circular No. 019/IRDA/NL/ F&U/Oct-08 dated November 6, 2008 has mandated that insurers are not permitted to abridge the scope of standard covers available under the erstwhile tariffs beyond the options permitted in the erstwhile tariffs. All general insurers are advised to adhere to the aforementioned circulars and any non- compliance of the same would be viewed seriously by the Authority. All general insurers are advised to adhere to the aforementioned circulars and any non- compliance of the same would be viewed seriously by the Authority. This is issued with the approval of competent authority. Sd/- (Prabodh Chander) Executive Director” [emphasis supplied] 18. The High Court has also reproduced a circular issued by IRDA dated 3.12.2009. It is instructive to quote the same :- “IRDA IRDA/NL/CIR/F&U/078/12/2009 3.12.2009. To All CEOs of All general insurance companies (except ECGC, AIC, Staff Health, Apollo) Re: Liability of insurance companies in respect of occupant of a private car and pillion rider in a two-wheeler under Standard Motor Package Policy (also called Comprehensive Policy). Pursuant to the Order of the Delhi High Court dated 23.11.2009 in MAC APP No. 176/2009 in the case of Yashpal Luthra v. United India and Ors., the Authority convened a meeting on November 26, 2009 of the CEOs of all the general insurance companies doing motor insurance business in the presence of the counsel appearing on behalf of the Authority and the leaned amicus curie. Based on the unanimous decision taken in the meeting by the representatives of the general insurance companies to comply with the IRDA circular dated 16th November, 2009 restating the position relating to the liability of all the general insurance companies doing motor insurance business in respect of the occupants in a private car and pillion rider on a two wheeler under the comprehensive/package policies which was communicated to the court on the same day i.e. November 26, 2009 and the court was pleased to pass the order (dt. 26.11.2009) received from the Court Master, Delhi High Court, is enclosed for your ready reference and adherence. In terms of the said order and the admitted liability of all the general insurance companies doing motor insurance business in respect of the occupants in a private car and pillion rider on a two-wheeler under the comprehensive/package policies, you are advised to confirm to the Authority, strict compliance of the circular dated 16th November, 2009 and orders dt. 26.11.2009 of the High Court. 26.11.2009 of the High Court. Such compliance on your part would also involve: (i) withdrawing the plea against such a contest wherever taken in the cases pending before the MACT, and issue appropriate instructions to their respective lawyers and the operating officers within 7 days; (ii) with respect to all appeals pending before the High Courts on this point, issuing instructions within 7 days to the respective operating officers and the counsel to withdraw the contest on this ground which would require identification of the number of appeals pending before the High Courts (whether filed by the claimants or the insurers) on this issue within a period of 2 weeks and the contest on this ground being withdrawn within a period of four weeks thereafter; (iii) With respect to the appeals pending before the Hon'ble Apex Court, informing, within a period of 7 days, their respective advocates on record about the IRDA Circulars, for appropriate advice and action. Your attention is also drawn to the discussions in the CEOs meeting on 26.11.2009, when it was reiterated that insurers must take immediate steps to collect statistics about accident claims on the above subject through a central point of reference decided by them as the same has to be communicated in due course to the Honourable High Court. You are therefore advised to take up the exercise of collecting and collating the information within a period of two months to ensure necessary & effective compliance of the order of the Court. The information may be centralized with the Secretariat of the General Insurance Council and also furnished to us. IRDA requires a written confirmation from you on the action taken by you in this regard. This has the approval of the Competent Authority. Sd/- (Prabodh Chander) Executive Director” [emphasis added] 19. ….................... 20. The information may be centralized with the Secretariat of the General Insurance Council and also furnished to us. IRDA requires a written confirmation from you on the action taken by you in this regard. This has the approval of the Competent Authority. Sd/- (Prabodh Chander) Executive Director” [emphasis added] 19. ….................... 20. It is also worthy to note that the High Court, after referring to individual circulars issued by various insurance companies, eventually sated thus :- “In view of the aforesaid, it is clear that the comprehensive/package policy of a two wheeler covers a pillion rider and comprehensive/package policy of a private car covers the occupants and where the vehicle is covered under a comprehensive/package policy, there is no need for Motor Accident Claims Tribunal to go into the question whether the Insurance Company is liable to compensate for the death or injury of a pillion rider on a two-wheeler or the occupants in a private car. In fact, in view of the TAC's directives and those of the IRDA, such a plea was not permissible and ought not to have been raised as, for instance, it was done in the present case.” 21. In view of the aforesaid factual position, there is no scintilla of doubt that a “comprehensive policy/package policy” would cover the liability of the insurer for payment of compensation for the occupant in a car. There is no cavil that an “Act Policy” stands on a different footing from a “Comprehensive/Package Policy”. As the circulars have made the position very clear and the IRDA, which is presently the statutory authority, has commanded the insurance companies stating that a “Comprehensive/Package Policy” covers the liability, there cannot be any dispute in that regard. We may hasten to clarify that the earlier pronouncements were rendered in respect of the “Act Policy” which admittedly cannot cover a third party risk of an occupant in a car. But, if the policy is a “Comprehensive/Package Policy”, the liability would be covered. These aspects were not noticed in the case of Bhagyalakshmi (2009 AIR SCW 5325) (supra) and, therefore, the matter was referred to a larger Bench. But, if the policy is a “Comprehensive/Package Policy”, the liability would be covered. These aspects were not noticed in the case of Bhagyalakshmi (2009 AIR SCW 5325) (supra) and, therefore, the matter was referred to a larger Bench. We are disposed to think that there is no necessity to refer the present matter to a larger Bench as the IRDA, which is presently the statutory authority, has clarified the position by issuing circulars which have been reproduced in the judgment by the Delhi High Court and we have also reproduced the same.” 23. I deem it proper to record herein that in terms of the guidelines/instructions, the details of which are given by the High Court of Delhi in the judgment (supra), the Insurance Companies have been directed not to contest such claim petitions and if contested, they have to satisfy the claim petitions and if appeals are pending, they have to withdraw the appeals. 24. I have also discussed this issue while dealing with a case of like nature as Judge of the Jammu and Kashmir High Court at Jammu titled as New India Assurance Co. Ltd. versus Shanti Bopanna and others, reported in 2014 ACJ 219, whereby award of Rs. 1,68,09,089/- with interest was made and it was held, after discussing all circulars/guidelines, effect of 'Act Policy', 'Comprehensive Policy' and 'Package Policy', that the occupant is covered by the 'Comprehensive Insurance Policy'. It is apt to reproduce paras 1, 2 and 16 of the judgment herein. “1. Does the 'Comprehensive policy of insurance' exempt the Insurance Company from its liability of paying compensation to the victim of a vehicular accident who is travelling in a vehicle which is covered under such policy, at the time of accident? This is the only important point raised in the instant appeal which seeks setting aside of award dated, 26.4.2012 (for short, 'the impugned award'), passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Samba (for short, 'the Tribunal'). 2. 'No' is possibly the only answer for the reasons that would flow from the narration of events below.” 3 to 15……………… 16. Having regard to the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court, Hon’ble High Courts of Delhi and Punjab and Haryana read with statement of the insurance official, S.K. Gupta, the appellant has rightly been saddled with the liability.” 25. Having regard to the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court, Hon’ble High Courts of Delhi and Punjab and Haryana read with statement of the insurance official, S.K. Gupta, the appellant has rightly been saddled with the liability.” 25. I have also discussed the same issue in this High Court in cases titled New India Assurance Company Ltd. versus Smt. Ritu Upadhaya and others, being FAO (MVA) No. 135 of 2011, decided on 10th January, 2014, New India Assurance Company Ltd. versus Smt. Anuradha and others, reported in Latest HLJ 2014 (HP) 1; and United India Insurance Company Ltd. versus Smt. Kulwant Kaur & another, being FAO No. 226 of 2006, decided on 28th March, 2014. 26. While applying the test to the instant case, one comes to an inescapable conclusion that admittedly, the vehicle is covered by insurance policy which is 'Package Policy', thus, covers any person including the occupants of the vehicle and the insured- owner. 27. It would also be profitable to mention herein that though, no issue has been framed by the Tribunal to the effect as to whether the deceased/injured were the occupants of the offending car or were the gratuitous passengers. However, the insurer has not led any evidence to prove that the deceased/injured were gratuitous passengers, which was for the insurer to plead and prove. 28. This Court in FAO No. 362 of 2012, titled ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company versus Sumitra Devi and others, in terms of the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in a case titled as National Insurance Company Limited versus Swaran Singh & others, reported in AIR 2004 Supreme Court 1531, held that the insurer has to plead and prove that the deceased was a gratuitous passenger, which it has failed to do so. It is apt to reproduce relevant portion of para 105 of the judgment rendered in Swaran Singh's case (supra) herein : “105. …................... (i) …....................…. (ii)…........................ (iii)…...................... (iv) The insurance company are, however, with a view to avoid their liability, must not only establish the available defence(s) raised in the said proceedings; but must also establish ‘breach’ on the part of the owner of the vehicle; the burden of proof wherefore would be on them.” 29. …................... (i) …....................…. (ii)…........................ (iii)…...................... (iv) The insurance company are, however, with a view to avoid their liability, must not only establish the available defence(s) raised in the said proceedings; but must also establish ‘breach’ on the part of the owner of the vehicle; the burden of proof wherefore would be on them.” 29. In a bunch of cases, FAO No. 169 of 2011 being the lead case, titled Shanti Devi versus National Insurance Company & others decided on 25th July, 2014; and in another bunch of cases, FAO No. 129 of 2012 being the lead case, titled as Varinder versus Darshna Devi & others, decided on 8th August, 2014, this Court also took the same view and held that the Insurance Company has to prove that deceased was travelling in the vehicle as a gratuitous passenger. 30. The Apex Court in another case titled as Fahim Ahmad & Ors. versus United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors., reported in 2014 AIR SCW 2045, held that the insurer has not only to plead the breach of the conditions of policy, but has also to substantiate the same by adducing positive evidence in support of the same. It is apt to reproduce para 6 of the judgment herein : “6. Although the plea of breach of the conditions of policy was raised before the Tribunal, yet neither any issue was framed nor any evidence led to prove the same. In our opinion, it was mandatory for respondent No. 1-Insurance Company not only to plead the said breach, but also substantiate the same by adducing positive evidence in respect of the same. In the absence of any such evidence, it cannot be presumed that there was breach of the conditions of policy. Thus, there was no reason to fasten the said liability of payment of the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal on the appellants herein.” 31. Learned counsel for the appellant-insurer has frankly conceded that it is a fact that the deceased as well as the injured were travelling in the offending car as occupants of the vehicle, were not gratuitous passengers; the insurer has not proved that they were the gratuitous passengers and were covered under the policy. 32. Learned counsel for the appellant-insurer has not addressed any other arguments and has also not questioned the impugned awards on any other count. 33. 32. Learned counsel for the appellant-insurer has not addressed any other arguments and has also not questioned the impugned awards on any other count. 33. Having said so, I am of the considered view that the Tribunal has rightly saddled the appellant-insurer with liability. 34. I have gone through the impugned awards. It appears that the amount of compensation awarded in all the claim petitions in terms of the impugned awards is not adequate. However, the claimants have not questioned the same, I deem it proper to uphold the same. 35. Viewed thus, all the appeals merit to be dismissed and the impugned awards are to be upheld. Accordingly, all the appeals are dismissed alongwith all pending applications and the impugned awards are upheld. 36. Send down the records after placing copy of the judgment on each of the files.