JUDGMENT : MANSOOR AHMAD MIR, J. 1. Both these appeals are outcome of judgment and award dated 28.4.2012, made by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (I) Mandi, H.P., for short ?the Tribunal?, in Claim Petition No. 48 of 2009, titled Smt. Dhani Devi and others versus Sh. Narender Bhardwaj and others, , whereby compensation to the tune of Rs.5,62,600/- alongwith interest @ 7.5% came to be awarded in favour of the claimants and insurer was saddled with the liability, hereinafter referred to as ?the impugned award?, for short. 2. The claimants have questioned the impugned award by the medium of FAO No. 125 of 2013, on the ground of adequacy of compensation and the insurer has questioned the same by the medium of FAO No. 386 of 2012, on the ground that the Tribunal has fallen in an error in saddling it with the liability. 3. Following points arise for consideration in these appeals. (i) Whether the insurer came to be rightly saddled with the liability? (ii) Whether the amount awarded is inadequate? 4. The answer is in negative for the following reasons. 5. While going through the record, one comes to an inescapable conclusion that the insurer has already satisfied the own damage vehicle claim which is also admitted by the learned counsel for the appellant in FAO No. 386 of 2012. Thus, the insurer cannot take ?U? turn at this stage. 6. The factum of insurance is admitted. Thus, the Tribunal has rightly saddled the insurer with the liability, needs no interference. 7. I have gone through the assessment made by the Tribunal right from paras 21 to 25 of the impugned award. I am of the considered view that the amount awarded is not inadequate rather excessive but keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, it cannot be said to be excessive rather adequate. 8. I have gone through the entire record. The Tribunal has rightly made the assessment, while keeping in view of the 2nd Schedule attached to the Act, read with Sarla Verma and others versus Delhi Transport Corporation and another reported in AIR 2009 SC 3104 and upheld in Reshma Kumari and others versus Madan Mohan and another, reported in 2013 AIR SCW 3120. 9. Viewed thus, the impugned award is maintained and both the appeals are dismissed. 10. 9. Viewed thus, the impugned award is maintained and both the appeals are dismissed. 10. Registry is directed to release the amount in favour of the claimants, strictly, in terms of the conditions contained in the impugned award, through payees' cheque account or by depositing the same in their bank accounts. 11. Send down the record forthwith, after placing a copy of this judgment.