ORDER 1. Heard on the question of admission. 2. The appellants have filed the present appeal being aggrieved by award dated 11.1.2017 by which Claim Case No. 23/2015 and Claim Case No. 24/2015 have been allowed by directing to pay compensation of Rs. 90,000/- to the claimant of Claim Case No. 23/2015 and Rs. 31,354/- to the claimant of Claim Case No. 24/2015 along with interest @ 7.5% per annum from 27.8.2015. 3. Facts of the case in short are as under : Smt. Brijraj Tanwar, filed the Claim Case No. 23/2015 under section 166 and 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation of Rs. 11,10,000/- on account of the injuries sustained due to the accident which took place on 3.1.2015. She was travelling in a bus having Registration No. M.P.10/P-0255 owned by Mohd. Juber, and driven by Ayyub Khan. Near about 12.30 pm the driver while driving rashly and negligently caused the accident and because of which the claimant sustained the injuries.The claimant was admitted in the Hospital and treatment was given. She remained in the Hospital from 3.1.2015 to 12.1.2015 and had incurred the expenditure of Rs. 2,50,000/- as she suffered the fracture in both the hands apart from other injuries. According to her, she also suffered the permanent disablement. 4. Shri Dilip Singh, filed a Claim Case No. 24/2015 claiming compensation of Rs. 7,10,000/-. He was also travelling in the same bus which met accident on 3.1.2015. He also sustained a fracture on his left hand and injuries on leg and head. He was admitted in the Civil Hospital“Ujjain, and incurred the expenditure of Rs. 1,50,000/-. He also suffered disablement and accordingly he claimed the compensation. 5. Owner and driver filed the reply denying the averment made in the claim cases. They have denied to the extent that the deceased were not travelling in the bus. 6. The Insurance Company filed the reply in both the claim cases by submitting that there was a violation of terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy. The driver was not having valid license at the time of driving the vehicle and Bus was overloaded with passengers hence, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay the compensation. 7. 6. The Insurance Company filed the reply in both the claim cases by submitting that there was a violation of terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy. The driver was not having valid license at the time of driving the vehicle and Bus was overloaded with passengers hence, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay the compensation. 7. The learned Tribunal after appreciating the evidence which came on record has rejected the contention of the Insurance Company and held that there was no violation of the terms and conditions of the Policy. The sitting capacity of bus was of 32+2 and at the time of the accident, the passengers were there as per the capacity of the bus. The learned Tribunal has assessed the compensation in respect of both the claimants and awarded amount of Rs. 90,000/- to Smt. Brijraj Tanwar, and Rs. 31,354/- to Shri Dilip Singh, in their claim cases respectively. 8. Being aggrieved by the award, the Insurance Company has filed the present appeals separately. 9. I have heard Shri Manoj Jain, learned Counsel for the appellant and Shri Ashish Jaiswal, learned Counsel for the appellant. 10. The appellant has filed the present appeal mainly on the ground that at the time of accident 50 passengers were travelling in the bus. The sitting capacity was 32+2 as per the RTO Registration Ex.D-1, therefore, the Company has successfully proved the violation of Insurance Policy, therefore, the learned MACT Ujjain, ought to have exonerated the Insurance Company by directing driver and owner to pay the compensation. 11. The appellant has not challenged the award on quantum. Immediately after the accident, an FIR was lodged in Police Station Ingoria, on 3.1.2015 Ex.P-1. In the FIR it was recorded that“approximately 35-40 man and women were travelling in the bus who received the injuries on account of the accident. The witnesses have specifically stated that all the passengers were sitting on their seat at the time of travelling. The Insurance Company has failed to produce any material or evidence before the Tribunal to establish that more than 60 passengers were travelling at the time of the accident therefore, the learned Tribunal has rightly rejected the contention of the Insurance Company that there was no violation of terms and conditions of the Policy. The appreciation of the evidence is given in para 16. 12. The appreciation of the evidence is given in para 16. 12. Para 16 is reproduced below : ^^bl laca/k esa c`tjktdqWoj ¼vk-lk-&1½ }kjk Hkh izfrijh{k.k esa ;g crk;k x;k gS fd egwMh ls baxksfj;k tkus ds fy, tc os cl esa cSBs Fks] rc cl Hkh gqbZ ugh Fkh vkSj txg fey x;h FkhA bl ckr ls bUdkj fd;k gS fd cl T;knk Hkjh gksus ds dkj.k os yksx cksuV ij cSBs Fks vkSj crk;k gS fd lHkh yksxks dks cSBus dh txg fey xbZ Fkh vkSj lHkh yksx cl eas cSBs gq, FksA blh izdkj fnyhi flag ¼v-lk-&2½ }kjk Hkh izfrijh{k.k esa ;g crk;k x;k gS fd egwMh ls baxksfj;k tkus ds fy, tc os cl esa cSBs Fks] rc cl Hkjh gqbZ ugh Fkh] mUgsa txg fey xbZ Fkh vkSj bl ckr ls bUdkj fd;k gS fd chp jkLrksa esa tks yksx cl esa cSBs Fks] os [kMs gq, FksA Lor% crk;k gS fd lHkh yksxksa dks cSBus dh txg fey xbZ FkhA ,slh fLFkfr esa izdj.k eas izLrqr lk{; ds vk/kkj ij {kerk ls vf/kd cl esa yksx cSBs gksuk izekf.kr ugha gksrk vkSj {kerk ls vf/kd yksx cSBs gksus ls cl iyV tkuk izdV ugh gksrkA** 13. In view of the above, I do not find any ground to admit these appeals hence, both the appeals are, hereby, dismissed.