JUDGMENT : Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J. Both these appeals are outcome of the award dated 20th October, 2009, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Solan (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’), in M.A.C. Petition No. 2-S/2 of 2008, titled as Shr Shri Om Prakash versus Shri Yoginder Verma & others, whereby compensation to the tune of Rs. 9,87,377/- with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of the award came to be awarded in favour of the claimant and the insurer was saddled with liability (hereinafter referred to as ‘the impugned award’). 2. The owner and driver have not questioned the impugned award, on any count. Thus, it has attained finality, so far it relates to them. 3. By the medium of FAO No. 59 of 2010, the insurer has questioned the impugned award on the ground that the Tribunal has fallen in an error in saddling it with the liability. 4. In FAO No. 304 of 2010, the claimant has challenged the impugned award on the ground of adequacy of compensation. 5. Thus, only following two questions are to be determined in these appeals. “1. Whether the Tribunal has rightly saddled the insurer with liability? 2. Whether the amount of compensation is just and proper?” 6. Both these questions are answered in affirmative for the following reasons. 7. The Tribunal has made discussion in para-17 of the impugned award and held that the insurer has failed to prove that the owner has committed any willful breach. 8. I have gone through the record. There is nothing on the file on the basis of which it can be said that the insured-owner has committed willful breach enabling the insurer to earn exoneration. Having said so, the findings returned by the Tribunal on Issue No. 3 are upheld. 9. I have gone through paras 11 to 15 of the impugned award. The compensation amount is not meager, rather excessive, is accordingly maintained. 10. It is stated by Mr. Deepak Kaushal, Advocate, that the claimant has died during the pendency of the appeal. The legal representatives of the claimant are at liberty to lay a motion for bringing them on record at the time when the amount is to be released in their favour. 11. Having said so, no interference is required. Accordingly, the impugned judgment is upheld and both the appeals are dismissed. 12. At this stage, Mr. The legal representatives of the claimant are at liberty to lay a motion for bringing them on record at the time when the amount is to be released in their favour. 11. Having said so, no interference is required. Accordingly, the impugned judgment is upheld and both the appeals are dismissed. 12. At this stage, Mr. Deepak Kaushal, Advocate stated at the Bar that 50% amount has been released in favour of the claimant. His statement is taken on record. Rest 50% amount be released in favour of the legal representatives of the claimants, on the application to be made by them, strictly in terms of conditions contained in the impugned award, through payees account cheque or by depositing the same in their accounts. 13. Send down the records after placing a copy of the judgment on each of the Tribunal's file.