ORDER : 1. Leave granted. 2. The appellants in Civil Appeal Nos.24062-24064 of 2017, are the legal representatives of the deceased, who was working as an Assistant Manager in N.T.P.C. and was drawing a salary of Rs.25,726/-per month. The claimants are the son and the parents of the deceased. The tribunal taking note of the age of the deceased i.e. 35 years, and considering the salary component, awarded a sum of Rs.32,45,367/-. 3. Three appeals were preferred by the New India Assurance Company Limited before the High Court, challenging its liability on the foundation that National Insurance Company is liable. The High Court by the impugned judgment and order came to hold that the National Insurance Company which is the insurer of the Maruti car is liable to pay 50%. Thus, the High Court as is percipitible, held both the insurers equally liable. 4. Against the aforesaid impugned order, the National Insurance Company Limited has also preferred the appeal being Civil Appeal No.24061 of 2017. It is submitted by Ms. Hetu Arora, learned counsel appearing for the appellant in the civil appeal that the High Court has erroneously appreciated the facts and circumstances and fastened the liability up to 50% on the National Insurance Company Limited though the vehicle, a tanker, which was ensured with the New India Assurance, is squarely liable. It is urged by her that the driver of the tanker all of sudden applied the break, as a consequence of which the driver of the Maruti car, the deceased, was put in such a situation that the car banged against the tanker and the accident occurred. 5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the New India Assurance Company Limited would submit that the tanker was standing and the driver of the Maruti car dashed against it. 6. On a perusal of the order of the High Court, it is noticeable that the High Court has not ascribed any reason to hold the insurer of the Maruti car liable except emphatically stating so. On a scrutiny of the evidence on record and the reasoning of the tribunal, we are of the considered opinion that the insurer of the tanker is singularly liable. 7. At this juncture, we are obliged to notice that no appeals were preferred by the claimants before the High Court. It is urged by Mr. On a scrutiny of the evidence on record and the reasoning of the tribunal, we are of the considered opinion that the insurer of the tanker is singularly liable. 7. At this juncture, we are obliged to notice that no appeals were preferred by the claimants before the High Court. It is urged by Mr. Shilp Vinod, learned counsel appearing for the claimants that the tribunal has not taken into consideration the future prospects and as per the latest judgment in National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and Others (2017) 13 SCALE 12 , 50% is necessary to be added. 8. In the course of hearing, a suggestion was given to the Mr. Shilp Vinod, learned counsel appearing for the appellants in Civil Appeal Nos.24062-24064 of 2017, whether lump sum enhancement of the amount by Rs.10,00,000/-(Rupees ten lacs only) will satisfy the claim. Learned counsel accepted that would be just compensation. Mr. D.K. Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-insurer, left it to the discretion of the Court. 9. In view of the aforesaid enhancement, the enhanced amount comes to Rs.42,45,367/-which shall be deposited deducting the amount already deposited excluding the interest within twelve weeks hence, before the tribunal, failing which it shall carry interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of application before the tribunal. The amount deposited shall be disbursed in favour of the claimants on proper identification. 10. In addition, the amount awarded by the tribunal with regard to the death of the mother and sister stands restored and, accordingly, the balance amount shall be deposited within twelve weeks hence before the tribunal. 11. The appeals are allowed to the extent indicated above. There shall be no order as to costs.