JUDGMENT : Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J. 1. Both these appeals are outcome of a common award, thus, I deem it proper to determine both these appeals by this common judgment. 2. Challenge in both these appeals is to award, dated 6th August, 2011, made by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ghumarwin, District Bilaspur, Himachal Pradesh (for short “the Tribunal”) in M.A.C. No. 19 of 2006/05, titled as Karam Dev and Another vs. Vijender Singh Chandel and Another, whereby compensation to the tune of Rs. 2,50,000/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of the petition till its realization alongwith costs assessed at Rs. 5,000/- came to be awarded in favour of the claimants and Shri Vijender Singh Chandel (son of registered owner of the offending vehicle) and Shri Anant Ram (co-owner of the offending vehicle) came to be saddled with liability (for short “the impugned award”). 3. Learned counsel for the appellants in both the appeals have not contested the impugned award on quantum and other grounds. 4. The only argument advanced by Mr. Tara Singh Chauhan, learned counsel for the appellant in FAO No. 13 of 2012, is that the offending vehicle was in the possession of Vijender Singh Chandel as the owner and he was responsible for the accident, thus, he should be saddled with the entire liability. 5. Mr. B.C. Verma, learned counsel for the appellant in FAO No. 437 of 2012, argued that Vijender Singh Chandel is not the registered owner of the offending vehicle, but was only driving the offending vehicle at the time of the accident, thus, it were the registered owners only, who were to be saddled with the liability. However, he frankly admitted that one of the registered owners, namely Shri Prem Singh, had expired on 19th May, 2004, and Vijender Singh Chandel is his son, thus, is the legal heir/representative of deceased-Prem Singh. 6. It is an admitted fact that deceased-Prem Singh and Anant Ram were the co-owners of the offending vehicle. 7. I have perused the record and gone through the impugned award. The Tribunal has rightly made the discussions in paras 24 to 28 of the impugned award and saddled them with liability. 8. Having said so, the impugned award is well reasoned and legal one, needs no interference. 9. Viewed thus, the impugned award is upheld and the appeal is dismissed. 10. The Tribunal has rightly made the discussions in paras 24 to 28 of the impugned award and saddled them with liability. 8. Having said so, the impugned award is well reasoned and legal one, needs no interference. 9. Viewed thus, the impugned award is upheld and the appeal is dismissed. 10. The awarded amount be deposited within eight weeks, if not already deposited. 11. At this stage, it is stated that one of the claimants, namely Shri Karam Dev has expired during the pendency of the appeal and his legal representatives have already been brought on record in FAO No. 437 of 2012 vide order, dated 23rd October, 2013. 12. Registry is directed to release 50% of the awarded amount in favour of claimant-Soma Devi and rest 50% in favour of claimant-Raj Kumar and claimant-Kumari Kumkum in equal shares through payee's account cheque or by depositing the same in their respective bank accounts. 13. Send down the record after placing copy of the judgment on Tribunal's file.