JUDGMENT : Servesh Kumar Gupta, J. 1. Both the appeals, titled above, have arisen out of the same accident challenging the award rendered by the Tribunal on 21.3.2009 in different claim petitions, hence are being adjudicated together. 2. Having heard the learned counsel of either party, it transpires that the motorcycle borne two youths, who were real brothers, were travelling from Doiwala to Dehradun on 29.8.2005 at 10:30 A.M. The road was the single lane. 3. Mr. Shailendra Singh, elder brother, was driving the bike whereas his young brother Narendra Singh was the pillion rider. The motorcycle was dashed by Santro Car No. UA07-B-3405, while such car was overtaking the bus running ahead. The car was insured with the appellant-National Insurance Company. This accident caused serious injuries to the brothers, duo, whose lives could be saved somehow after a long medical treatment; there was a composite fracture in a leg of Mr. Shailendra Singh besides stiffness of hip joint; whereas in the case of Narendra Singh, similar leg injuries including stiffness in knee joint was found. At the time of accident, the age of Shailendra Singh and Narendra Singh was 23 and 20 years respectively. 4. The brethren presented the respective petitions claiming compensation to the tune of Rs.17.00 lakh each but the Tribunal has awarded Rs.2,52,718/- to Mr. Narendra Singh and Rs.3,18,551/- to Mr. Shailendra Singh. 5. Feeling dissatisfied, the insurance company has preferred these appeals basing their objection mainly on the contention that the accident had occurred on account of contributory negligence because the motorcycle coming from front direction was previously not on its extreme left side but it was coming from its front and the presence of bus obliterated the view of the bike. Suddenly, this bike borne youths took their vehicle towards left and at that very moment, this Santro car was overtaking the bus. Therefore, the contributory negligence should have been attributed by the Tribunal fastening the share of responsibility to satisfy the award upon the insurance company of the bike. 6. The Court has considered the evidence available on record and after visualizing the picture of spot, I think that the contention of learned counsel for the insurance company is unsubstantial for the reason that the road was not a wide one, as afore-stated. 6. The Court has considered the evidence available on record and after visualizing the picture of spot, I think that the contention of learned counsel for the insurance company is unsubstantial for the reason that the road was not a wide one, as afore-stated. On such a road, it was the bounden duty of the overtaking car to be vigilant enough and to ensure that none is coming from the front direction. In a single lane, it is difficult to understand that the car driver could not glance the forthcoming motorcycle because it was engrossed with the presence of bus. It can be discerned that the accident occurred on account of the wrong assessment of car driver in estimating the time for overtaking the bus so that to achieve its object before the motorcycle covers the distance. 7. That apart, when the claimants have presented themselves in the witness box, nothing has been questioned by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the insurance company before the Tribunal about the sequence of events of this occurrence, indicating the fault of motorcycle borne youth. 8. As regards the quantum, nothing material has been agitated and I find that looking to the age of these seriously injured youths, the compensation is not on the higher side. 9. For the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any merit in any of these appeals. Accordingly, both the appeals are dismissed affirming the judgment and order, under challenge. 10. The insurance company has deposited the entire decretal amount before the Tribunal concerned out of which some money has also been released in favour of the claimants in compliance of directions of this Court. The Tribunal is directed to release the remaining money in favour of the claimants after verifying the records without asking for any security/surety. 11. In both the appeals, the amount lying in this Court in the form of statutory deposit be also remitted to the Tribunal concerned for being paid to the claimants. 12. Let a copy of this judgment along with the LCR be sent back to the court below for compliance.