JUDGMENT : Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J. These three appeals are disposed of by this common judgment, having been filed by the claimant(s)-injured for enhancement of the compensation, against three different set of judgments and awards of the same date, arising out of the same accident, awarding the same amount of compensation, in favour of the injured-claimants and against respondent No. 1 Narender Kumar, for short ?the impugned awards?. 2. It appears from the record that three claimants, namely Bhagwan Datt, Mohinder Kumar and Raj Kumar filed claim petitions before the Tribunal for grant of compensation on account of injuries sustained by them in an accident caused by the driver of truck bearing registration No. HP-15-3352 near village Sari Talrota by driving the said vehicle rashly and negligently. All the three claimants claimed compensation to the tune of Rs.2 lacs each, in the claim petitions, as per the break-ups given in their claim petitions. 3. The owner and insured have resisted and contested the clam petitions. 4. Following common issues came to be framed by the Tribunal in all the three claim petitions. (i) Whether the petitioner has sustained injuries on account of rash/negligent driving of the vehicle by its driver (since deceased) ? OPP. (ii) If issue No.1 is proved in affirmative, to what amount of compensation the petitioner is entitled to an from whom? OPP (iii) Whether the driver of the vehicle did not possess a valid and effective driving licence and respondent No. 1 was fully aware of it, if so its effect? OPR-2. (iv) Whether the vehicle did not have valid registration certificate, fitness certificate, route permit and other documents? OPR-2 (v) Whether the driver of the vehicle had violated the standard Insurance Policy conditions? OPR-2 (vi) Whether the petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties? OPR-2 (vii) Whether the petitioner was a gratuitous passenger? OPR-2 (viii) Relief. 5. The Tribunal, after scanning the evidence on records,- awarded compensation to the tune of Rs.10,000/- each with costs in favour of the claimants and against respondent No. 1 Narender Kumar owner of vehicle. 6. The owner and insurer have not questioned the impugned award(s) on any ground, thus, has attained finality so far the same relates to them. The claimants have questioned the impugned award(s) on two grounds, i.e., the impugned award is inadequate and the award(s) was to be satisfied by the insurer. 7. 6. The owner and insurer have not questioned the impugned award(s) on any ground, thus, has attained finality so far the same relates to them. The claimants have questioned the impugned award(s) on two grounds, i.e., the impugned award is inadequate and the award(s) was to be satisfied by the insurer. 7. I wonder how the claimant(s) can make such a prayer that the impugned award(s) should be satisfied by the insurer and not by the insured. However, I deem it proper not to discuss this issue. 8. I have examined the evidence on record. I am of the considered view that the Tribunal has rightly held that the insured has committed willful breach and is liable to pay compensation in all the three petitions. 9. The injured/claimants have not examined any expert and have not led any evidence to the effect that to what amount of compensation they are entitled to. They have not produced on record the disability certificate(s) which could have held them entitled to Rs.25,000/-, on no fault liability. The Tribunal, after making guess work held the claimants entitled to Rs.10,000/- each with costs which is a just and appropriate compensation. 10. Having said so, all the three appeals are dismissed alongwith pending applications, if any. 11. Send down the records forthwith.