JUDGMENT : SURESHWAR THAKUR, J. 1. Since all the afore appeals, arise, from a mishap, involving an offending vehicle, bearing No. H.P. -02A-2621, thereupon all the FAOs are amenable for a common verdict being recorded thereon. FAOs No. 473 of 2018 and 99 of 2019 Compensation amount, borne in a sum of Rs. 55,000/-, stood assessed, vis-`-vis, the claimant Anju, in claim petition No. 21-S/2 of 2015, by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-II, Shimla, and, interest @ 9% per annum also stood levied thereon, and the apposite indemnificatory liability, stood fastened, upon, the insurer of the offending vehicle. 2. The insurer of the offending vehicle is aggrieved, by the fastening of the liability, vis-`-vis, the afore compensation amount, upon it, and has, for un-saddling the afore liability, has reared FAO No. 473 of 2018, against claimant Anju. The contest appertaining to the afore, is rested, upon, the contract of insurance, executed interse the deceased owner, of, the offending vehicle, and, the United India Insurance Company Ltd., contract of insurance whereof, is embodied in Ext. RW1/B, rather therein carrying hence reflections, vis-`-vis, the seat carrying capacity, of, the offending vehicle, being upto 9. However, he contends that with the dependants', of, the deceased one Sikandara Devi, widow of the deceased driver, of, the offending vehicle, though, in her cross-examination, rendering an answer in the dis-affirmative, to a suggestion, meted to her, during, her cross-examination, as conducted by the learned counsel for the Insurance Company, vis-`-vis, at the relevant time 30-35 passengers, being aboard in the bus, (i) yet, the afore denial is ill-consequential, in, the face of subsequent thereto, hers' acquiescing, to suggestions, qua hers' not being present at the site of occurrence, and rather in the face of the claimant, in MAC petition No. 21-s/2 of 2015, during the course, of, her examination-in-chief, upon, stepping into the witness box as PW-1, hence hers tendering into evidence, Ext. PW1/A, (ii) with echoing(s), vis-`-vis, the offending vehicle, at the relevant time, carrying 30-35 passengers, and, thereupon he contends qua dehors the factum qua the FIR, not, constituting any substantive piece of evidence, yet when in conjunction with echong(s) borne in Ext. PW1/A, (ii) with echoing(s), vis-`-vis, the offending vehicle, at the relevant time, carrying 30-35 passengers, and, thereupon he contends qua dehors the factum qua the FIR, not, constituting any substantive piece of evidence, yet when in conjunction with echong(s) borne in Ext. PW1/A, and also with RW-3 in his examination-in-chief, ensuring the making, of, exhibition marks, upon the FIR, from the originals thereof, thereupon the afore echoing(s) being prima-facie correct, (iii) thereupon hence firm, evidence, for, his afore espousal, rather succeeding, obviously emerging (iv) however, no reliance can be placed upon, the, afore purported admissions, made, by the claimant Anju, in claim petition, bearing No. 21-S/2 of 2015, given theirs being surmisingly made (v) given evidently with hers at the relevant time, carrying her ward, to school, and when for, meteing an absolute tenacity, to the afore espousal, rather, she also was enjoined to make a further detailing(s), of, the names, of, the parents of the wards, hence traveling alongwith her, at, the relevant time, hence in the offending vehicle, (vi) however, the afore echoing(s) are not made in Ext. PW1/A, nor when the Inevestigating Officer concerned hence has not ensured the placing on record, of, statement(s), of the afore, and, more imperatively, of, PW, as recorded under Section 161, of, the Cr.P.C. (vii) thereupon it is formidable to conclude qua the afore echoing(s) also not purveying, the, apposite facilitation(s), to the learned counsel for the Insurer, importantly also, with, the, Insurer, thereafter seeking to prove the afore espousal, through ensuring, the, stepping into the witness box, of, RW-3, hence also is construed, to, not mete, any relevance or credence thereto, and, whereupon the afore recital(s) are also acquiesced rather to be false. Moreover, the reasons for disapprobating, the, afore aspousal is also derivable, from, RW-3, Const. Moreover, the reasons for disapprobating, the, afore aspousal is also derivable, from, RW-3, Const. Gulab Singh, though, an official of the police station concerned, hence proving the photo copy of the apposite FIR through the original records, brought by him, in, Court, (viii) yet thereupon, also the requisite echoing(s), borne in the apposite FIR, vis-`-vis, 30-31 passengers, traveling in the bus, at the relevant time, being not, ipso-facto, hence proven, (vii) given in his cross-examination, his making acquiescing(s) vis-`-vis, suggestion, meted to him, qua his not conducting investigation and, when the best person to render firm echoing(s), vis-`-vis, the offending vehicle, at the relevant time, rather carrying 30-31 passengers, was hence the Investigating Officer, whereas, the latter not stepping into witness box, (ix) thereupon the echoing(s) borne in the testification rendered by PW-1 Anju, do not, empower the learned counsel, for, the Insurance Company, to contend, qua the afore terms, and, conditions of the insurance policy rather being breached. 3. Moreover, the learned counsel, for the Insurer, makes a submission, that, the compensation amount, borne in a sum of Rs. 50,000/-, as assessed vis-`-vis, the claimants, under, the head "Nonpecuniary Damages" of pain, suffering and trauma, and Rs. 5,000/- assessed under the head "Pecuniary Damages" and, towards the expenditure over treatment, transportation and special diet, being grossly disproportionate, vis-`-vis, the reflections, cast in Ext. PW2/A, Ext. PW2/B, Ext. PW2/C, Ext. PW2/D and Ext.PW2/E. The afore submission has vigor, as the echoing(s), made in the afore alluded exhibits, dehors the Doctor, not stepping into the witness box, for proving qua immense trauma, being encumbered, upon, the claimant, in sequel to the injuries, rather not carrying the apposite evidentiary worth. Consequently, for want of adduction, of, expert evidence, pronouncing vis-`-vis, the injuries and, concomitant therewith, excruciating trauma, being encumbered upon the claimant, thereupon renders assessment, of, a sum of Rs. 50,000/-, qua her, being exorbitant and, hence it requiring interference, being modified to a sum of Rs. 25,000/-. However, a sum of Rs. 5,000/-assessed, vis-`-vis, transportation charges, and costs incurred, on, purchasing, of medicines, and special diet, does not warrant, any interference. 4. For the foregoing reasons, FAO No. 473 of 2018, filed by the insurer is partly allowed, and, FAO No. 99 of 2019, filed by the claimant Anju, is dismissed, and, the impugned award, is, in the aforesaid manner, hence modified. 5,000/-assessed, vis-`-vis, transportation charges, and costs incurred, on, purchasing, of medicines, and special diet, does not warrant, any interference. 4. For the foregoing reasons, FAO No. 473 of 2018, filed by the insurer is partly allowed, and, FAO No. 99 of 2019, filed by the claimant Anju, is dismissed, and, the impugned award, is, in the aforesaid manner, hence modified. Accordingly, the claimant Anju, is, held entitled to a total compensation of Rs. 30,000/- (Rs. 25,000 under the head "Non-Pecuniary Damages" + Rs. 5,000/- under the head, "Pecuniary Damages"), along with interest, @ 9%, per annum, from, the date of filing of the petition, till its payment. The apposite indemnificatory liability, stands fastened, upon the United India Insurance Co. Ltd. FAO No. 484 of 2018 a/w FAO No. 294 of 2019 5. Compensation amount, borne in a sum of Rs. 1,52,000/-, stood assessed, vis-`-vis, the claimant Nikita Mangal, by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-II, Shimla, H.P. and interest @ 9% per annum stood levied thereon, and the apposite indemnificatory liability, stood fastened, upon the insurer of the offending vehicle. 6. The learned counsel, for the claimant Nikita Mangal, seeks enhancement, of, compensation from, a, sum of Rs. 1, 52,000, to, a sum of Rs. 15,37,000/- The learned counsel for the Insurer, makes a submission that the compensation amount, borne in a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/-, and, as stands assessed, vis-`-vis, the claimant, under, the head "Non-pecuniary Damages" and, towards pain, suffering and trauma, and loss of her studies, and Rs. 52,000/- assessed, under the head "Pecuniary Damages" and, towards the expenditure over treatment, transportation and special diet, being grossly disproportionate, vis-`-vis, the reflections cast in Ext. PW2/A, Ext. PW3/A, Ext. PW3/B, Ext. PW3/C, PW3/D, PW3/E and Ext.PW2/E and Ext. PW4/A. The afore submission has vigor, as the echoing(s), made in the afore alluded exhibits, dehors the Doctor, not stepping into the witness box, hence for proving qua immense trauma, being encumbered, upon, the claimant, arising from, injuries of a grievous nature, being entailed upon her, rather not holding any apposite evidentiary worth. Moreover, the learned counsel, for the claimant, makes a submission, that, on anvil of the injuries, suffered by the claimant, the latter being precluded, to, prosecute her studies. Moreover, the learned counsel, for the claimant, makes a submission, that, on anvil of the injuries, suffered by the claimant, the latter being precluded, to, prosecute her studies. Since, for sustaining the afore contention, the apposite disability certificate, was enjoined to be placed, on record, and, with apt echoing(s), qua the disabling injuries, permanently precluding the afore Nikita, to prosecute her studies, or her studies being hampered, (i) whereas, the afore disability certificate remaining rather un-adduced, into evidence, and Ext. PW3/D, making pronouncements, vis-`-vis, the academic career, of, afore Nikita, not suffering nor her studies, being hampered, (ii) thereupon upon, absence, of, adduction of apposite expert evidence, pronouncing vis-`-vis, the criticality, of, injuries, and, concomitant therewith, trauma being encumbered, upon, the claimant, and, also vis-`-vis apt loss to her studies, being entailed, upon her, rather renders assessment, of, a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/-, to be exorbitant, (iii) thereupon assessment, of Rs. 1,00,000. qua her, under, the afore head, is, exorbitant, and, requires modification, and, hence is modified, to, a sum of Rs. 50,000/-. However, a sum of Rs. 52,000/-assessed, vis-`-vis, transportation charges, and costs incurred, on, purchasing of medicines, and, special diet, does not warrant, any interference. 7. For the foregoing reasons, FAO No. 484 of 2018, filed by the insurer is partly allowed, and, FAO No. 294 of 2019, filed by the claimant Nikita Mangal, is dismissed, and, the impugned award, is, in the aforesaid manner, hence modified. Accordingly, the claimant Nikita Mangal, is, held entitled to a total compensation of Rs. 1,02,000/- (Rs. 50,000, under, the head "Non-Pecuniary Damages" + Rs. 52,000/-, under, the head, "Pecuniary Damages") along with interest @ 9%, per annum, from, the date of filing of the petition, till its payment. The indemnificatory liability, stands fastened, upon, the United India Insurance Co. Ltd. FAO No. 485 of 2018 and 302 of 2019 8. Compensation amount, borne in a sum of Rs. 5,70,000/-, stood assessed, vis-`-vis, the claimants in claim petition No. 20-S/2 of 2015, by the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-II, Shimla, and interest @ 9% per annum, stood levied, thereon, and, the apposite indemnificatory liability stands, fastened, upon, the insurer of the offending vehicle. 9. Compensation amount, borne in a sum of Rs. 5,70,000/-, stood assessed, vis-`-vis, the claimants in claim petition No. 20-S/2 of 2015, by the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-II, Shimla, and interest @ 9% per annum, stood levied, thereon, and, the apposite indemnificatory liability stands, fastened, upon, the insurer of the offending vehicle. 9. The learned counsel appearing, for, the insurer of the offending vehicle, does not, contest the validity of findings, rendered, upon issue No.1, appertaining to the deceased afore Mahima, rather arising from, the rash and negligent manner, of, driving, of, the offending vehicle by its driver, one Banarsi Dass. However, the learned counsel, for the claimants has contended, with much vigor, before this Court, that the expostulation of law, borne in a case titled as, "Kishan Gopal and another vs. Lata and others, (2014) 1 SCC 244 " rather warranting apart, from, the strictest deference thereto, also meteings, of, deference, vis-a-vis, the, further postulation borne therein, qua, the currency (ies), since, the date of occurrence, inasmuch as, on 1.8.2014, and, upto now, rather begetting devaluation(s) hence, warranting, levying thereon, of interest @ 9% interest per annum, (iii) rather, therethrough, concomitantly, hence, an espousal, is, made before this Court, qua hence, the surviving parents, of, the deceased, being entitled, to, compensation, in consonance, with, the judgment (supra). In view of the aforesaid apt reason, it would be just and reasonable, to, take her notional income at Rs. 30,000/-, and, further taking the young age of the mother, of, the deceased, given hers' thereat being aged about 35 years hence a multiplier of 15 can be applied thereto. Consequently, Rs. 30,000x15= 4,50,000/-, and, Rs.50,000, under, conventional heads, towards loss of love and affection, funeral expenses, last rites as held in (1994) 2 SCC 176 , is, assessed, qua the claimant. Accordingly, the claimants, in, claim petition No. 20-S/2 of 2015, are, held entitled to a total compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rs. 30,000x15=4,50,000 + Rs. 50,000, under the heads love and affection and funeral expenses,) along with interest @ 9%, per annum, from, the date of filing of the petition, till its payment. 10. For the foregoing reasons, hence FAO No. 485 of 2018, filed by the insurer is partly allowed, and, the FAO No. 302 of 2019, filed by the claimants, is, dismissed. FAO No. 472 of 2018 11. Compensation amount, borne in a sum of Rs. 10. For the foregoing reasons, hence FAO No. 485 of 2018, filed by the insurer is partly allowed, and, the FAO No. 302 of 2019, filed by the claimants, is, dismissed. FAO No. 472 of 2018 11. Compensation amount, borne in a sum of Rs. 2,00000/-, stood assessed, vis-`-vis, the claimants in claim petition No. 117 of 2016, by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kinnaur at Rampur Bushahr, District Shimla, and interest @ 9% per annum stood levied thereon, and the apposite indemnificatory liability, stood fastened, upon, the insurer of the offending vehicle. 12. Through the instant FAO, the award pronounced, in claim petition No. 117 of 2018, is, strived to be reversed, by, the aggrieved therefrom Insurer, of, the offending vehicle, on grounds parimateria, vis-`-vis, the grounds reared in FAOs No. 485 of 2018, 484 of 2018, and, in FAO No. 473 of 2018. Though, the aggrieved therefrom, the Insurance company, contests the fastening, of, the apposite indemnificatory liability, upon it, and when the afore fastening, of, the apposite indemnificatory liability, upon it, is anvilled, upon, grounds, similar, vis-`-vis, the grounds, reared in FAOs No. 485 of 2018, 484 of 2018, and, in FAO No. 473 of 2018, and, in the instant FAO, (i) thereupon the afore espousal is in tandem therewith, hence discountenanced. Moreover, the further contention, qua the assessment, of, compensation, being made erroneously, is, also un-meritworthy, as is evident, on a reading of paragraph22 of the award, rendered in MAC No. 117 of 2016, paragraph whereof is extracted hereinafter: "22. While discussing and deciding issue No.2, it has been held that respondent-Company had undertaken to pay compensation to the tune of Rs. 2,00,000/- in case of death of the driver/owner. Admittedly, the deceased was owner-cum-driver of the vehicle in question. Petitioners had tendered in evidence copy of legal heirs certificate Ext. PW1/M of the deceased shown to have been issued by the concerned revenue authorities. In this document, all of the petitioners have been shown as successors of the deceased." (i) given visibly it being anvilled, upon, an undertaking made by the Insurance Company, (ii) thereupon the awarding of the compensation amount, borne in a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/-, vis-`-vis, the claimants, in claim petition No. 117 of 2016, also does not warrant, any interference. Consequently, the quantum of compensation, assessed vis-`-vis, the claimants in claim petition No. 117 of 2016, is maintained and affirmed. 2,00,000/-, vis-`-vis, the claimants, in claim petition No. 117 of 2016, also does not warrant, any interference. Consequently, the quantum of compensation, assessed vis-`-vis, the claimants in claim petition No. 117 of 2016, is maintained and affirmed. Therefore, FAO No. 472 of 2018, filed by the Insurance company is dismissed. The impugned award is affirmed and maintained. All pending application(s), if any, are also disposed of. No costs.