JUDGMENT : SURESHWAR THAKUR, J. 1. Since, FAO No. 268 of 2018, and, FAO No. 269 of 2018, both arise from a common ill-fated mishap, hence, involving the offending vehicle, bearing No. HP-72-0187, and, also when the grounds of appeal, reared by the aggrieved insurer, rather are also common in both the afore FAOs, thereupon, both the afore FAOs, are, amenable, for a common verdict being recorded thereon. 2. In MACT Petition No. 10 of 2015, wherefrom, FAO No. 268 of 2018 has arisen, the learned tribunal concerned hence assessed, vis-a-vis, the claimants concerned, compensation amount borne, in a sum of Rs.17,43, 600/-, and, thereon levied interest, at the rate of 9% per annum, (i) and, it was ordered to commence, from, the date of filing of the petition, till its realization, and, the apposite indemnificatory liability thereof, was, fastened, upon, the insurer/appellant herein. 3. In MACT Petition No. 11 of 2015, wherefrom, FAO No. 369 of 2018 has arisen, the learned tribunal concerned hence assessed, vis-a-vis, the claimants concerned, compensation amount, borne in a sum of Rs.17, 43, 600/-, and, thereon levied interest, at the rate of 9% per annum, (i) and, it was ordered to commence, from, the date of filing of the petition till its realization, and, the apposite indemnificatory liability thereof, was, fastened, upon, the insurer/appellant herein. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the insurer, seriously contests, the, validity of rendition, of, affirmative findings, by learned tribunal, upon, the issue appertaining, to the relevant mishap, being a sequel, of, rash, and, negligent manner, of, driving, of, the offending vehicle, by respondent No.4 herein, one Pawan Kumar. His contest is focused, upon, the testification rendered, by RW-2, who through his deposition comprised, in his examination-in-chief, has lent assured proof qua the rider, of, the motor cycle, hence, driving it in a rash, and, negligent manner, and, as a sequel whereof FIR, borne in Ex.RW1/A, stood registered against him, (ii) and, therefrom he contends qua with the contents existing therein, ascribing negligence, vis-a-vis, the rider of the motor cycle, hence, the learned tribunal committing, a, gross legal fallacy, in, fastening the apposite liability, upon, the appellant herein. However, the afore submission is per se flimsy, frail, and, pretextual, as, the afore echoings borne, in Ex.RW1/A are fully blunted, visa-vis, their apt vigour, (a) given RW-1 making a testification qua after conclusion of investigations, into the offences, borne in Ex.RW1/A, the investigating officer concerned, rather filing a cancellation report, before the judicial Magistrate concerned, and, it being also accepted. 5. Be that as it may, the learned counsel, for the insurer has also contended (i) that even if the afore testification, may be of no avail, to succor the afore contest, vis-a-vis, the affirmative findings, returned by the learned tribunal, upon, the issue appertaining to the relevant mishap, being a sequel of rash, and, negligent manner, of, driving of the offending vehicle, by respondent No.4 herein, (a) yet , the reliance, if any, meted by the learned tribunal, upon, the testimony of an ocular witnesses, vis-a-vis, the relevant occurrence, and, who stepped into the witness box as PW-5, rather being, a, misreliance, (b) as, the afore witness, in his cross-examination, has made an admission, qua his holding, extremely cordial relations, with, one Parmeshwari Dass, and, also his further testifying, vis-a-vis, his, on the day, whereat he rendered, his testification, hence being accompanied, to, the courts, by, the afore Parmeshwari Dass, and, thereupon, his rendering an interested version qua the occurrence. However, the afore admission, does not, render his testimony, borne in his examination-in-chief, wherein he ascribes, commission, of, tort of negligence, vis-a-vis, respondent No.4 herein, rather to suffer any negation, (c) as during his cross-examination, by the counsel, for respondent No.4, upon, a affirmative suggestion being purveyed to him, vis-a-vis, his remaining, at the site of occurrence for 1/2 hour, and, whereto he meted an affirmative suggestion, rather enhancing an firm inference qua his being, not a concocted or an invented eye witness to the occurrence, rather his being, a, genuine, and, a credible eye witness thereto, (d) and, merely, upon, his holding, the, afore purported interestedness, vis-a-vis, the claimant Parmeshwar Dass, thereupon, his testimony, borne in his examination-in-chief, wherein he ascribes, an incriminatory role, vis-a-vis, respondent No.4 herein, reiteratedly hence not being amenable, for, any apt rejection. Also the factum, vis-a-vis, his not being associated in the relevant investigations, by the investigating officer, being also likewise irrelevant. 6. Also the factum, vis-a-vis, his not being associated in the relevant investigations, by the investigating officer, being also likewise irrelevant. 6. The learned counsel appearing, for the insurer has contended, qua, the computation, in, a sum of Rs.12,000/- per mensem, by the learned tribunal rather the salary of each deceased, being, a, mis-computation, as there exists no evidence on record, qua the deceased, during, their life time, being employed in a foreign country, nor there exists any evidence, on record, qua therefrom, theirs transferring, in the account of their parents, hence, respectively sums of Rs.40,000/- per mensem each. However, the afore contention, suffers outright rejection, as, the learned tribunal, irrespective of the factum, vis-avis, the deceased, during. their life time rendering employment, in a foreign country, and, theirs therefrom transferring, into the accounts, of their family members, sums of Rs.40,000/- per mensem each, rather had only, on anvil of both the deceased being skilled persons, hence concluded, qua theirs hence earning salary, of, Rs.12,000/- per mensem each. Consequently, the afore computation, of, the per mensem salary, of, the deceased, does not suffer, from any perversity or absurdity, and, when thereafter the requisite hikes, towards future prospects, borne in 40 per centum also stood tenably added thereon, and, when thereafter, the, requisite multipliers, of, 17, hence, after deducting 50% from the apposite figure, of, annual dependency, given both the deceased being bachelors, rather stood applied thereon, thereupon, the compensation amount as adjudged, vis-a-vis, the claimants, is, creditworthy, and, does not suffer, from, any infirmity. 7. For the foregoing reasons, there is no merit in the instant appeals, and, both the afore appeals are dismissed. The awards impugned before this Court are maintained, and, affirmed. All pending applications also stand disposed of. Records be sent back forthwith.