JUDGMENT Sanjay Karol, J. (Oral) Both these appeals arise out of common award dated 22.6.2013, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Shimla, H.P. in MACT Case No. 8-S/2 of 2011, titled as Shukla Devi & others vs. Ashok Chopra & others. 2. Claimants have filed FAO No. 4145 of 2013 seeking enhancement of compensation, whereas, insurer has filed FAO No. 4117 of 2013 assailing the impugned award. 3. Based on the pleadings of the parties, Tribunal framed the following issues:- “1. Whether Ms. Shikha Devi had died on account of rash and negligent driving of vehicle No. PB-07Z-0337 by respondent No. 2? OPP 2. If issue No. 1 is proved to what amount of compensation and from whom petitioners are entitled? OPP 3. Whether petition is not maintainable against respondents? OPR- 1&2. 4. Whether claim petition is bad for non joinder? OPR-1&2. 5. Whether petitioners are estopped from instituting claim petition as alleged ? OPR- 3. 6. Relief.” 4. In terms of impugned award, Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 6,70,103/- with interest @ 9% per annum plus Rs. 3000/- as costs of petition in favour of the claimants. Taking note of validity of the insurance policy executed by the insurer in favour of insured, liability stands fastened upon the insurer. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties as also perused the record, I am of the considered view that no case for interference is made out in these appeals. 6. On 8.11.2010, deceased Shikha Devi was travelling as a pillion rider on scooter No. HR-49 8322. Truck bearing No. PB-07Z 0337, owned by Ashok Chopra, driven by Vijay Kumar hit the scooter. As a result of this accident, Shikha Devi died. 7. Fact that accident took place is not in dispute. That Shikha Devi died as a result of injuries sustained by her in the said accident is not in dispute. Age (17 years) of deceased is also not in dispute. That at the time of occurrence of accident vehicle was insured with the insurer and driver was holding a valid driving licence is also not in dispute. 8. According to learned counsel for the insurer, accident took place on account of rash and negligent act and conduct of the scooterist and not the driver of the truck. That at the time of occurrence of accident vehicle was insured with the insurer and driver was holding a valid driving licence is also not in dispute. 8. According to learned counsel for the insurer, accident took place on account of rash and negligent act and conduct of the scooterist and not the driver of the truck. Having perused the material, so made available at the time of hearing, I see no reason to differ with findings returned by the Tribunal on this count. Rash and negligent act and conduct is that of driver Vijay Kumar. It is urged that F.I.R. No. 149 of 2010 was registered against the scooterist and as such it is a case of contributory negligence. This contention also merits rejection as cancellation report with respect to the same stands filed. Further independent witnesses have testified about the occurrence of accident, proving negligence of Vijay Kumar. Testimonies of Sh. Kuldeep Chand (PW-3) and Sh. Sanjeev Kumar (PW-4) are evidently clear in that regard. 9. The Tribunal awarded compensation under different heads in the following manner:- i) Compensation for loss of dependency awarded = Rs. 576000/- (Five lacs seventy six thousands) ii) Reasonable funeral compensation awarded = Rs. 5000/- (five thousands only) iii) Reasonable compensation for transportation of dead body awarded = Rs. 5000/- (Five thousands only) iv) Medical compensation = Rs. 84130/- (Eighty four thousands one hundred thirty). Total compensation awarded = Rs. 670103/- (Six lacs seventy thousands one hundred three). 10. At the time of accident deceased was 17 years of age. Her monthly income, for the purposes of dependency stands assessed @ Rs. 3000/-. Keeping in view the ratio of law laid down by the Apex court in Sarla Verma (Smt.) & others versus Delhi Transport Corporation & another, (2009) 6 SCC 121 and Pepsu Road Transport Corporation vs. National Insurance Company, (2013) 10 SCC 217 there is no error with the same. 11. It is urged that the amount towards medical reimbursement/compensation is on the higher side. Contention only merits rejection as the same stands reimbursed only towards actual expenses incurred for medical treatment. Documentary evidence (Ext. P-1 to P-42) is on record to this effect. 12. In my considered view, amount of compensation so awarded in terms of the impugned award is just, proper and equitable based on settled principles of law. It also cannot be said to be inadequate. Documentary evidence (Ext. P-1 to P-42) is on record to this effect. 12. In my considered view, amount of compensation so awarded in terms of the impugned award is just, proper and equitable based on settled principles of law. It also cannot be said to be inadequate. There is neither any illegality nor any perversity in the impugned award. For all the aforesaid reasons, there is no merit in the present appeals and the same are dismissed accordingly. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.