JUDGMENT : Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J. In terms of order, dated 2nd July, 2013, the exparte proceedings were drawn against respondent No. 3 in both the appeals, are recalled for the reason that Mr. Sanjay Parashar, Advocate, has filed power of attorney on behalf of the said respondent. 2. The challenge in both these appeals is to the judgments and awards of different dates, made by the Motor Accident Claims TribunalII, Una, District Una, Himachal Pradesh (for short "the Tribunal") in M.A.C.P. No. 06/2007, titled as Smt. Kanta Rani alias Kanta Devi versus Shri Pawan Kumar & others and M.A.C.P. No. 04/2007, titled as Smt. Bimla Devi versus Shri Pawan Kumar & others, whereby compensation to the tune of 85,000/- and 1,61,000/-, respectively, with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of institution of the claim petitions till realization alongwith costs assessed at 1,000/- in both the cases, came to be awarded in favour of the claimants and against the insurer (for short “the impugned awards”). 3. Both these appeals are outcome of one motor vehicular accident, which was allegedly caused by the driver, namely Shri Pawan Kumar, while driving car, bearing registration No. PB10 AP6969, rashly and negligently on 25th November, 2006, at about 7.20 A.M. at Panjawar Chowk, thus, I deem it proper to determine both these appeals by this common judgment. 4. The claimants, the owner-insured and the driver of the offending vehicle have not questioned the impugned awards on any count, thus, the same have attained finality so far as the same relate to them. 5. The appellant-insurer has questioned the impugned awards on the grounds taken in the memo of the respective appeals. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant-insurer argued that the offending vehicle was not insured at the time of the accident and the owner-insured has committed a willful breach. 7. The argument of the learned counsel for the appellant-insurer is not correct for the following reasons: 8. The Tribunal, after scanning the pleadings of the parties, framed similar set of issues in both the claim petitions. I deem it proper to reproduce the issues framed in M.A.C.P. No. 06/2007 (subject matter of FAO No. 184 of 2011) herein:- “1. Whether the petitioner suffered injuries because of the rash and negligent driving of Car No. PB10 AP6969 by the respondent/driver Sh. Pawan Kumar as alleged? OPP 2. I deem it proper to reproduce the issues framed in M.A.C.P. No. 06/2007 (subject matter of FAO No. 184 of 2011) herein:- “1. Whether the petitioner suffered injuries because of the rash and negligent driving of Car No. PB10 AP6969 by the respondent/driver Sh. Pawan Kumar as alleged? OPP 2. If the issue No. 1 is proved in affirmative, whether the petitioner is entitled to the compensation as claimed. If so, its quantum and from whom? OP Parties 3. Whether the respondent/driver Sh. Pawan Kumar was not holding and possessing a valid and effective licence to drive the car as alleged. If so, its effect? OPR 4. Whether the liquor was being smuggled in the car as alleged? OPR 5. Relief.” 9. The grounds projected in the memo of appeals revolve around issues No. 3 and 4. It was for the insurer to discharge the onus to prove the said issues. It is apt to record herein that the insurer has not pressed both these issues before the Tribunal and came to be determined against the insurer with the findings 'not pressed'. 10. I have gone through the memo of appeals. It is nowhere recorded in the memo of appeals that the said finding has wrongly been recorded by the Tribunal. Once the insurer has not pressed issues No. 3 and 4 before the Tribunal, it cannot lie in its mouth to say that the ownerinsured has committed a willful breach or there was violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy read with the mandate of Sections 146, 147 and 149 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “MV Act”). 11. Having said so, the grounds taken in the memo of appeals do not survive. 12. Accordingly, the impugned awards are upheld and the appeals are dismissed. 13. Registry is directed to release the awarded amount in both the appeals in favour of the claimants strictly as per the terms and conditions contained in the respective impugned awards through payee's account cheque or by depositing the same in their respective bank accounts. 14. Send down the record after placing copy of the judgment on each of the Tribunal's files.