JUDGMENT : Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J. Both these appeals are directed against the judgment and award dated 28.4.2008, made by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Una, H.P. in MAC Petition No. 39 of 2006, titled Sh. Geeta Ram versus Sh. Surinder Kumar and others, for short “the Tribunal”, whereby compensation to the tune of Rs.2,27,000/- alongwith interest @ 7.5% per annum was awarded in favour of the claimant, hereinafter referred to as “the impugned award”, for short. 2. The claimant, by the medium of appeal being FAO No. 177 of 2009, has questioned the impugned award on the ground of adequacy of the compensation and Chandigarh Transport Undertaking Chandigarh has questioned the impugned award by the medium of FAO No. 648 of 2008, on the ground that the Tribunal has fallen in an error in discharging the insurer, i.e., Pepsu Road Transport Corporation from the liability. 3. Both these appeals are outcome of a common award, thus, I deem it proper to determine both these appeals by this common judgment. 4. The claimant had filed claim petition for the grant of compensation before the Tribunal, as per the break-ups given in the claim petition. The case projected by the claimant is that the accident is the outcome of contributory rash and negligent driving of Surinder Kumar and Yog Raj. 5. The parties led evidence and following issues came to be framed by the Tribunal. (i) Whether Smt. Kamlesh Kumari died in a motor accident caused by rash and negligent driving of the bus (NO. CH-OIG-8198) by Surinder Kumar (respondent No.1) and the bus (No. PB-11AB- 9159) by Yograj Singh (respondent No.3) on May 17, 2006, as alleged? OPP (ii) If the above issue 1 is proved, whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation, if so to what amount and from whom? OPP. (iii) Whether the petition is bad for mis-joinder of parties and non-joinder of necessary parties? OPR-3 and 4. (iv) Relief. 6. The Tribunal, after examining the evidence and the pleadings, held that the accident was the outcome of contributory negligence of both the drivers and directed both the owners to satisfy the award. 7. Mr. Ajay Sharma, Advocate, for Pepsu Road Transport, on instructions stated that the FIR was lodged and final report was also filed against both the drivers before the Court of competent jurisdiction. 8. I have gone through the record. 7. Mr. Ajay Sharma, Advocate, for Pepsu Road Transport, on instructions stated that the FIR was lodged and final report was also filed against both the drivers before the Court of competent jurisdiction. 8. I have gone through the record. The Tribunal has rightly made the discussion in the impugned award and findings returned on issue No. 1 are accordingly upheld. 9. Having said so, the appeal FAO No. 648 of 2008 filed by the Chandigarh Transport Undertaking Chandigarh merits to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. 10. Now coming to FAO No. 177 of 2009 filed by the claimant for enhancement. No case for enhancement of the amount is made out for the simple reason that the deceased was 60 years of age and the Tribunal rightly applied the multiplier of “8”. The Tribunal has rightly assessed the compensation. Hence the appeal FAO No. 177 of 2009 is also dismissed. 11. Registry is directed to release the amount, in favour of the claimant, strictly, as per the terms and conditions contained in the impugned award, through payee’s cheque account. 12. Send down the record, forthwith, after placing a copy of this judgment.