JUDGMENT : Servesh Kumar Gupta, J. Both these appeals have arisen out of the same accident, hence are being taken up together for adjudication. 2. In brief, the facts are that Smt. Geeta Mehta along with her husband Sri Surendra Singh Mehta was traveling in Uttarakhand Transport Bus No.UA-07-M-4172, in the intervening night of 14/15-04-2007 at around 5:45 AM, the bus, aheading to Ludhiyana, dashed with some tractor trolley. 3. The accident was so fearful that many a passenger, including the couple, was injured. Smt. Geeta Mehta’s injury was so serious that she was referred from one hospital to another and ultimately, she referred to Delhi and after months together treatment, she could be discharged from the hospital with the disability of 70% in her body, as deposed by concerned Doctor. 4. Learned Tribunal has awarded the compensation Rs.2,88,265/- to Smt. Geeta Mehta and only Rs.20,000/- to her husband Sri Surendra Singh Mehta in different claim petitions, launched by them, where-against, both these present appeals have been filed. 5. It has been argued on behalf of the Insurance Company that FIR was lodged against the driver of the tractor (unknown) but the liability has been fastened upon the Insurance Company of the bus. 6. This argument is without any substratum because the Court is not in oblivion that the FIR was lodged by Mr. Mahesh Kumar, the conductor of the bus, who would never owe the responsibility of such accident on the driver of the same because they were companion and hand in gloves. 7. That apart, the findings of the Tribunal have countenanced the reasons for apportioning the negligence inasmuch as 80% on the bus driver and 20% on the driver of the tractor. Besides, the statement of independent witness, who was obviously the injured, reveals that the accident had been caused on account of negligence of the bus driver. 8. Smt. Geeta Mehta’s both legs were fractured and there was blood transfusion in her whole body and she remained hospitalized for quite long time. 9. It has further been argued that the driver of the bus did not have a valid driving license, as has been manifested in the report, which was procured by the valuer/investigator of the Insurance Company from the Transport Office, Braielly. 10. 9. It has further been argued that the driver of the bus did not have a valid driving license, as has been manifested in the report, which was procured by the valuer/investigator of the Insurance Company from the Transport Office, Braielly. 10. This argument is also wholly unsubstantial for the reason that such report of the valuer had not been got proved by the appellant by producing the relevant person in the witness box, so that the opportunity could have been availed by the claimants’ counsel to cross-examine him. 11. In addition to, nothing has been asked from the driver of the bus in this regard, when he was produced, as a defence witness, placing such so-called verification report from the concerned Transport Office. The Tribunal found that such driving license was renewed even four times after due periodical gaps from the concerned Office. 12. Considering the gravity of the injuries, I think that the compensation has been awarded in the lesser side. There is no force in both these appeals and are hereby dismissed. 13. The compulsory statutory amount in both the appeals, if lying in the Registry, shall be remitted back to the Tribunal concerned along with interest earned. 14. After remission of compulsory statutory amount, learned Tribunal shall immediately release the amount of compensation along with interest earned thereon to the claimants. 15. Stay order, if any, stands vacated. 16. Let a certified copy of this judgment along with LCR be sent back to the Tribunal concerned for information and compliance.