JUDGMENT Sureshwar Thakur, J. - The claimants are the legal heirs of deceased Raj Bahadur, who met his end, in, a motor accident, hence, involving the offending vehicle, driven, by respondent No.4 herein. The afore Raj Bahadur, as, disclosed by postmortem report, borne in Ex.RB, met his end, in sequel, to, the apposite fatal injuries, becoming encumbered, upon, him, in a motor vehicle accident. The learned Tribunal, in, making the award, upon, MAC Petition No. 73-R/2 of 2015, has, assessed, vis-a-vis, the dependents, of, the afore deceased, hence, compensation, borne in a sum of Rs.10,80,000/-, and, thereon added interest at the rate, of, 9% per annum, and, the afore apposite levied rate of interest, is, ordered to commence from the date of filing of the petition, till realization thereof, (I) and, the apposite indemnificatory liability thereof, was, fastened upon the insurer/appellant herein. 2. The insurer becoming aggrieved therefrom,hence, for invalidating the findings, rendered, upon, the apposite issue, and, appertaining, to, the fastening of the indemnificatory liability, upon, it, and, also for reducing the compensation amount assessed, vis-a-vis, the claimants, has, thereagainst, rather instituted, the, instant appeal, before this Court. 3. Visibly, the learned counsel appearing, for, the appellant/insurer, has, not contested, the, validity, of, rendition, of, affirmative findings, upon, issue No.1, hence appertaining to the demise of Raj Bahadur, being a sequel of rash, and, negligent manner, of, driving, of, the offending vehicle, by respondent No.4 herein. 3. Visibly, the learned counsel appearing, for, the appellant/insurer, has, not contested, the, validity, of, rendition, of, affirmative findings, upon, issue No.1, hence appertaining to the demise of Raj Bahadur, being a sequel of rash, and, negligent manner, of, driving, of, the offending vehicle, by respondent No.4 herein. However, as aforestated, the learned counsel, appearing for the insurer of the offending vehicle, rather has contended before this court, (a) that, the fastening of the apposite indemnificatory liability, vis-a-vis, the determined compensation amount, upon, it, being legally infirm, (b) as, the registration certificate appertaining to the offending vehicle, and, borne in RW1/D, rather reflects, vis-a-vis, the offending vehicle being categorized, as, a Light Goods Vehicle, (c) whereupon, he contends that with the hirer of vehicle, one Prem Chand, while reporting the incident to the police, and, qua wherewith, an FIR, borne in Ex.RA, became lodged, his, hence, making echoings therein, vis-a-vis, at the relevant time, ten Nepali labourers becoming carried, in, the offending vehicle, (d) and, whereupon, he further contends, that, with the insurance cover executed inter se the insurer, and, the insured, and, embodied in Ex.RW2/B, making echoings therein, vis-a-vis, the, permissible carrying capacity, of, the afore category, of, the vehicle, becoming limited upto five, (e) hence, the carrying of 10 Nepali labourers, in, the offending vehicle, becoming rather visibly beyond, and, also transgressing hence the covenanted passenger carrying capacity, of, the offending vehicle, and, per se, hence, the fastening of the apposite indemnificatory liability, upon, the insurer, becoming interfereable rather by this Court. However, the afore submission, cannot be accepted, by this Court, (i) as, Prem Chand, who lodged the FIR, has, while stepping into the witness box, as, PW-2, and, during, course thereof, he, hence, tendered, during, in his examination-in-chief, his affidavit, borne in Ex.PW2/A, (ii) and, with therein his making clear echoings, vis-a-vis, apart from himself, and, his son, two Neapli labourers, being carried in the offending vehicle rather for the purpose, of, equipment carried therein, being unloaded therefrom, at, the apt destination, whereupto, they along, with, theirs alongwith, the, equipment(s), were, to disembark or become off loaded therefrom. Though, the, afore disclosure made in his affidavit, borne in Ex.PW2/A, though, was attempted to be scuttled, vis-avis, its vigour, by the counsel for the insurer, by subjecting him, to a scathing cross-examination, (ii) yet during course thereof, though he became confronted with the afore contents, as, borne in Ex. RA, yet, with his denying qua his making, the, afore disclosures therein. Thereupon, the afore denial by PW-2, vis-a-vis, the afore disclosure borne in Ex. RA, and appertaining, to, qua 10 Nepali labourers, rather at the relevant time, being carried, in, the offending vehicle, though, would become belied, only, upon, (iii) the counsel for the insurer, eliciting, from the police station concerned, his apposite statement, as, made prior, to the lodging, of, the apposite FIR, and, it containing rather recitals bearing consonance, with, the recitals, as, borne in Ex. RA. However, the afore statement, made by Prem Chand, prior, to the FIR Ex. RA, becoming registered, remained unrecoursed, to be elicited, from, the police station concerned, (iv) thereupon, the denial by PW-2, in his cross-examination, qua the apposite contents borne therein, and, carrying recitals, vis-a-vis, 10 Nepali labourers, becoming carried, in, the offending vehicle, hence at the relevant time, rather appear(s) to hold an aura of tenacity. Reiteratedly, it appears, that, the echoings occurring therein, becoming scribed therein rather, not at the instance, of, one Prem Chand, contrarily, it appears that their occurrence therein, being, a sequel, of, theirs becoming scribed therein, rather at the instance, of, the police officials concerned. Corollary thereof, is that the testification, of, PW-2, as embodied in his examination-in-chief, qua, at the relevant time hence apart from himself, and, his son, two Nepali labourers, being also carried in the offending vehicle, rather being construable to be truthful. Corollary thereof, is that the testification, of, PW-2, as embodied in his examination-in-chief, qua, at the relevant time hence apart from himself, and, his son, two Nepali labourers, being also carried in the offending vehicle, rather being construable to be truthful. Furthermore, thereonwards, with, in the offending vehicle, at the relevant time, goods becoming boarded, and, also evidently, and, unrebuttingly, the offending vehicle, being hired by one Prem Chand, (v) does, fillip a further inference qua the hirer of the loaded therein hence goods, along with his son, travelling in the offending vehicle, rather along with two Nepali labourers, for, the latter unloading therefrom, the, unrebuttingly carried therein hence goods, (vi) besides when the total, of all, the aforesaid, including the driver of the offending vehicle, is upto five, and, hence their number(s), falls within, the apposite permissible contractual insured capacity, of, the offending vehicle, thereupon, the insurer, of, the offending vehicle, cannot exculpate, its, apposite indemnificatory liability. 4. Be that as it may, the learned counsel appearing for the insurer, has proceeded to contend, that, with the extant insurance policy, being an Act policy, and, when the apposite provisions, as, borne in Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act ), provisions whereof stand extracted hereinafter, enshrine qua only within domains, of clause (i) of subsection (1)(b), and, also within, the, ambit, of, the thereunderneath occurring proviso, rather, an, insurance cover being validly executable, (i) whereas, given the hereafter made submission, the, afore apposite persons(s), rather aboard the offending vehicle, not falling, within, the ambits thereof, hence, the apposite indemnificatory liability hence becoming unsaddleable, upon, the insurer :- "147 Requirements of policies and limits of liability. - (1) In order to comply with the requirements of this Chapter, a policy of insurance must be a policy which- (a) is issued by a person who is an authorised insurer; and (b) insures the person or classes of persons specified in the policy to the extent specified in sub-section (2)- (i) against any liability which may be incurred by him in respect of the death of or bodily 27 [injury to any person, including owner of the goods or his authorised representative carried in the vehicle. or damage to any property of a third party caused by or arising out of the use of the vehicle in a public place; (ii) against the death of or bodily injury to any passenger of a public service vehicle caused by or arising out of the use of the vehicle in a public place: Provided that a policy shall not be required- (i) to cover liability in respect of the death, arising out of and in the course of his employment, of the employee of a person insured by the policy or in respect of bodily injury sustained by such an employee arising out of and in the course of his employment other than a liability arising under the Workmen''s Compensation Act, 1923 (8 of 1923) in respect of the death of, or bodily injury to, any such employee- (a) engaged in driving the vehicle, or (b) if it is a public service vehicle engaged as conductor of the vehicle or in examining tickets on the vehicle, or (c) if it is a goods carriage, being carried in the vehicle, or (ii) to cover any contractual liability. Explanation. -For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that the death of or bodily injury to any person or damage to any property of a third party shall be deemed to have been caused by or to have arisen out of, the use of a vehicle in a public place notwithstanding that the person who is dead or injured or the property which is damaged was not in a public place at the time of the accident, if the act or omission which led to the accident occurred in a public place. (2) Subject to the proviso to sub-section (1), a policy of insurance referred to in sub-section (1), shall cover any liability incurred in respect of any accident, up to the following limits, namely:- (a) save as provided in clause (b), the amount of liability incurred; (b) in respect of damage to any property of a third party, a limit of rupees six thousand: Provided that any policy of insurance issued with any limited liability and in force, immediately before the commencement of this Act, shall continue to be effective for a period of four months after such commencement or till the date of expiry of such policy whichever is earlier. (3) A policy shall be of no effect for the purposes of this Chapter unless and until there is issued by the insurer in favour of the person by whom the policy is effected a certificate of insurance in the prescribed form and containing the prescribed particulars of any condition subject to which the policy is issued and of any other prescribed matters; and different forms, particulars and matters may be prescribed in different cases. (4) Where a cover note issued by the insurer under the provisions of this Chapter or the rules made thereunder is not followed by a policy of insurance within the prescribed time, the insurer shall, within seven days of the expiry of the period of the validity of the cover note, notify the fact to the registering authority in whose records the vehicle to which the cover note relates has been registered or to such other authority as the State Government may prescribe. (5) Notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force, an insurer issuing a policy of insurance under this section shall be liable to indemnify the person or classes of persons specified in the policy in respect of any liability which the policy purports to cover in the case of that person or those classes of persons." (i) Reiteratedly, thereupon, he contends that with the mandate, borne in Section 147(1)(b)(i), encompassing, only the, imperativeness qua covering of risks, vis-a-vis, happenings, of, death or vis-a-vis, risk, of, bodily injuries, encumbered, upon, any person including the owner of goods or his authorised representative, as, become carried, in, the offending vehicle, (ii) thereupon, the labourers engaged, by, the hirer, of, the goods rather in the vehicle, at the relevant time, for, theirs unloading, hence at the apt destination, hence the goods carried therein, not becoming covered, within the ambit, of, the mandate, borne in Section 147 (1)(b)(i) of the Act, (iii) hence, he contends that theirs becoming construed, rather to be gratuitous passengers, and, when also no evidence exists on record, qua theirs being carried, for, hire or reward, thereupon, also, a, further sequel becoming aroused, qua the fastening, of, the apposite indemnitificatory liability, upon, the insurer, of, the offending vehicle, rather being grossly misbefitting. 5. 5. However, in making the afore submission, the learned counsel appearing for the insurer, has, remained unmindful, to, the proviso occurring thereunderneath, (i) wherein, a policy executed within the ambit, of, Section 147 of the Act, rather is imperatively enjoined, to, also include therewithin, hence coverage(s) of risk(s), arising, from, happening(s), of, death or encumbrance(s), of, disability, upon, an employee, rather during, the course of his performing his employment, under, his employer. (ii) However, with a further statutory expression qua the covering, of, the afore risks, and, appertaining, to the, afore statutory category, of, persons, becoming, a, statutory necessity, upon, reiteratedly, the afore risks, hence, falling within the ambit, of, the Workmen''s Compensation Act, and, yet upon, happenings, of the afore events, though the remedy under the afore Act, also becoming recoursable, along with the apt provisions borne in the Motor Vehicles Act, yet both the afore statutory mechanisms being, recourseable in the, alternative, and, theirs not being conjointly recourseable. The afore proviso has deep, and, profound incidents, inasmuch, as, for, obviating the execution, of, two insurance policies, inter se, the insured, and, the insurer i.e. for covering the risk appertaining, to, entailment of death or bodily injury, upon, the owner of the goods, or his authorised representative, hence, borne, at the relevant time, in the offending vehicle. Significantly, rather all the afore risks are statutorily enjoined to be encapsulated, in the relevant drawn, contract, of, insurance, inter se, the, insured, and, the insurer. However, upon, afore befallment(s) becoming encumbered, upon, an employee, during, the course of his rendering his employment, under, his employer, do also statutorily require, the, execution, of, an apposite therewith hence contract of insurance, inter se the insured, and, the insurer. However, upon, afore befallment(s) becoming encumbered, upon, an employee, during, the course of his rendering his employment, under, his employer, do also statutorily require, the, execution, of, an apposite therewith hence contract of insurance, inter se the insured, and, the insurer. Consequently, the afore proviso, when, is, read along with the mandate, as, borne in Section 147(1)(b)(i) of the Act, does provide, a clue for thereafter hence meteing an answer, to, the afore contention, as, raised before this Court, by the counsel for the insurer, as, the apposite employment, as, contemplated within the proviso, to, Section 147 of the Act, (a) rather carries, a, connotation, vis-a-vis, it appertaining, to, a permanently engaged employee or employees, hence, by the employer insured, either in the ministerial or non ministerial capacity, and, does not encompass, hence, within its domain or fold, rather any hired coolies or labourers hired, in, the offending vehicle, by the hirer of the goods, on a job specific basis, inasmuch, as, rather theirs becoming engaged, only for, loading or unloading therefrom, on liquidation to them, hence the settled amongst them, rather, the, afore job basis remuneration, hence, goods carried, in, the offending vehicle, rather at the apt destination. Unless the afore connotation, is meted to the scope, of, employment rendered, by any employee, under his employer, thereupon, the engagement, on job specific basis, and, on concomitant job basis remunerations, hence, of employees, by the hirer, of, goods, rather for limited duration times, rather would bring conflict, with, the normal expected parlance, as, attributable, to, the employment, of an employee, under, the apposite validly insured employer(s), vis-a-vis, for, whose covering(s), of, risk, a contract of insurance stands executed, (a) parlance whereof, has, connotation, of, permanence, or regularity, of, performance of work, by an employee, under, his insured employer, and, also it would conflict with, the, necessity of, a, contract of insurance, becoming executed, inter se, the insured, and, the insurer, hence, for covering the risk of death or bodily injury, befalling upon an employee, during, the course of his performing his employment, under, his employer, (b) and, in respect whereof, a, special statutory recourseable mechanism, is, embodied, in, the Workmen''s Compensation Act, 1923, alongwith, the, mechanism, as, contemplated, in the Motor Vehicles Act. Though the afore argument(s), ascribing, vis-a-vis, the coolies engaged by the hirer, of, goods, as, carried in the goods vehicle, the status, of, gratuitous passenger, given theirs not becoming construable, to, be employees, of, the insured, has become validated, by, a verdict, of, the Hon''ble Apex Court, rendered in a case titled as Sanjeev Kumar Samrat v. National Insurance Co. Ltd., (2013) ACJ 1 , the relevant paragraph No.24 whereof stands reproduced hereinafter:- "24. It is worthy to note that sub-clause (i)(c) refers to an employee who is being carried in the vehicle covered by the policy. Such vehicle being a goods carriage, an employee has to be covered by the statutory policy. On an apposite reading of Sections 147 and 167 the intendment of the Legislature, as it appears to us, is to cover the injury to any person including the owner of the goods or his authorised representative carried in a vehicle and an employee who is carried in the said vehicle. It is apt to state here that the proviso commences in a different way. A policy is not required to cover the liability of the employee except an employee covered under the 1923 Act and that too in respect of an employee carried in a vehicle. To put it differently, it does not cover all kinds of employees. Thus, on a contextual reading of the provision, schematic analysis of the Act and the 1923 Act, it is quite limpid that the statutory policy only covers the employees of the insured, either employed or engaged by him in a goods carriage. It does not cover any other kind of employee and therefore, someone who travels not being an authorised agent in place of the owner of goods, and claims to be an employee of the owner of goods, cannot be covered by the statutory policy and to hold otherwise would tantamount to causing violence to the language employed in the Statute. It does not cover any other kind of employee and therefore, someone who travels not being an authorised agent in place of the owner of goods, and claims to be an employee of the owner of goods, cannot be covered by the statutory policy and to hold otherwise would tantamount to causing violence to the language employed in the Statute. Therefore, we conclude that the insurer would not be liable to indemnify the insured." (i) wherein, a, judicial diktat rather stands emphatically underscored, that the statutory policy rather enjoining, the, covering(s), hence, only the risk(s), appertaining, to, befallment, of, bodily injury, and, death, upon, the employee, of, the insured either employed or engaged in the goods carriage, (c) and, that it does not envisage, the, covering of risk of employees, of, the hirer of the goods or the owner of the goods, all of whom, rather along with the goods, rather travel(s), upto, the apt destination, hence, in the offending vehicle, for, thereat, the, loaded therein goods, rather becoming unloaded. Consequently, the effect thereof, is, that when the deceased, became along with other person(s), hence, engaged, as coolies, by the, hirer, of, goods, rather to unload the goods carried therein, hence, at the apt destination, (d) and, also when the son, and, owner of the goods, one Prem Chand, hence, total upto five persons, though, may prima facie render, the, claimants/registered owner, to, become estopped from contending qua theirs being engaged, by the insured, and, also may become forestalled from contending, qua theirs being employees of the insured, rather with theirs being aboard, as, gratuitous passengers, hence, in the offending vehicle, rather would enable the insurer, to contend that the fastening, of, the apposite indemnificatory liability, upon, it becoming inapt. However, in fully adopting, the, afore submission, rather this Court is to also bear in mind, not only, the afore expostulation of law, as made, in the afore verdict, and, the concurrent therewith view, as, made by this Court, upon, its reading, the, proviso, to, Section 147 of the Act, along with, the mandate borne, in, Section 147(1)(b)(i) of the Act supra, (ii) yet, also the, marked distinguishing revereable fact inter se the verdict relied, upon, by the counsel for the insurer, and, vis-a-vis, the facts at hand, highlighted distinguishing factum where, is comprised, in, rather, the, verdict supra carrying, an, insurance policy, borne in Exh. RW2/3/A, and, it becoming drawn stricto sensu, within, the afore alluded statutory enshrined mandate(s), (iii) and, with the latter exhibit also making candid expostulation, vis-a-vis, though, the, carrying of goods, therein being contractually permissible, and, yet, the, use thereof, for carrying thereon passengers, except the employees, of the insured, and, whose number does not exceed six, rather becoming contractually hence explicitly forbidden However, contrarily hereat, rather a reading, of, Ex. RW2/B, unfolds qua the permissible passenger carrying capacity, of, the offending vehicle, categorised in the registration certificate, as, a light goods vehicle, being upto five, and, the, apt premium becoming paid, by the insured, and, it appertaining, to, the, covering, of, the, risk of owner/driver, and, of the cleaner/conductor. However, the owner/driver, of, the, offending vehicle, at relevant time, did not engage, any cleaner therein. Furthermore, therein, unlike the policy hereat, an emphatic clear explicit interdiction, is, borne, against, the, carrying, in, the thereat, offending vehicle hence passengers, rather carrying a numerical strength beyond six, and, also a further candid echoing, is, embodied therein qua the afore, number, of, passengers carried therein, rather imperatively and, conspicuously, being the evident employees, of, the insured, (iv) rather hereat there is no alike therewith rather any clear, and, categorical, vivid echoing, rather in Ex.RW2/B, and, vis-a-vis, the five persons, who were permissibly amenable, for, becoming borne, in, the offending vehicle, hence all, being enjoined to be employees of the insured, and, also no interdiction becomes cast, therein, vis-a-vis, the engagement, of, coolies, by, the hirer, of, goods, upon, the offending vehicle, becoming forbidden. (v) besides with the apt connotation ascribed, vis-a-vis, the statutory coinage "employees of the insured", is, qua it bearing, an, imminent parlance, vis-a-vis, permanence, and, regularity, in, employment, under, the insured employer, (vi) nor when, for ensuring the unloading of goods carried therein, hence, at the apposite destination, rather thereat the services, of, coolies may not be available, thereupon, the, engagement, of, the afore persons in the offending vehicle, and, also theirs becoming borne therein, rather alongwith the goods, and, the hirer, of, the goods, cannot be construed to be rather carrying any, trait, of, the forbidden capacity, of, hence gratuitous passenger(s). Moreover, though, only two amongst, the, five persons, were being carried in the offending vehicle, at the relevant time, became, the apt persons qua wherewith, the apt risk of death or bodily injuries hence befalling upon, them, became indemnifiable rather by the insurer. However, the premium paid towards the risks, of, cleaner/conductor also hence required the latter, to, at the relevant time, rather occupy the offending vehicle, yet the cleaner, of, the offending vehicle, at the relevant time, did not occupy, the, offending vehicle. However, contrarily, the offending vehicle, at the relevant time, was occupied apart, from, the driver also by the hirer of the goods, his son, and, two coolies, all of when, hence, numbered five. Since, only the owner, of, the goods or the hirer of the offending vehicle, was authorised to travel, in the offending vehicle, whereas, the son of the hirer, of, the offending vehicle, rather naturally becoming not an authorised representative, of, the owner of the goods, and, also, upon, death, or, bodily injuries hence befalling, upon the son, of, the hirer of the goods, rather enabled, the, learned counsel, for the insurer, to, contend, that, hence, upon, the afore risks hence befalling him, rather become outside the ambit, of, contract of insurance, executed inter se the insurer, and, the insured, (vii) yet he remained alive, and, hence the afore espousal, is, unamenable, for being, addressed before this Court. The two labourers including, the predecessor-in-interest, of, the claimant also evidently along with the goods, were, rather borne therein, for, hence traveling in the offending vehicle, and, were borne therein obviously, for, enabling the unloading of the goods therefrom, rather at the apt destination. The two labourers including, the predecessor-in-interest, of, the claimant also evidently along with the goods, were, rather borne therein, for, hence traveling in the offending vehicle, and, were borne therein obviously, for, enabling the unloading of the goods therefrom, rather at the apt destination. Nowat, when as aforestated, unlike, the verdict supra, rendered by the Hon''ble Apex Court wherein, the, thereat insurance policy, Ex.PW2/3/A, excepting covering(s), the risk, of, six employees, of, the employer/insured, there is no alike therewith apposite explicit excluding covenant, in, the extant contract, of, insurance, executed inter se the insurer, (viii) and, though the risk of the afore labourers, does not, aptly become, hence, contemplated, to become explicitly covered, by the apposite contract of insurance drawn inter se the insured, and, the insurer, as, the afore labourers are engaged, by, the hirer of the goods, yet when imperatively in affinity, with, the verdict supra, it became enjoined, to, exist hereat, also, a, contractual covenant, vis-a-vis, the afores being employees, of, the insured, whereas, the afore covenant being amiss, in the extant policy, (ix) hence, the non existence, of, the afore specific prohibitive clause hereat, brings, to the fore, the apt distinction, inter se, the verdict rendered by the Hon''ble Apex Court in Sanjeev Kumar Samrat"s case (supra), vis-a-vis, the hereat policy, and, thereupon renders the afore expostulation of law, as, borne therein, becoming inapplicable, vis-a-vis, the extant case. Hence, this Court, is, constrained to conclude, that, with five passengers, being permissibly carrieable, at, the relevant time, hence, in the offending vehicle, (x) especially when, two labourers, as, hired by the owner, of, the goods, though, become not explicitly contemplated, to be only employees, of, the insured, rather they, for, afore reasons become tacitly permitted, by, the insured, to be borne in the offending vehicle, upon, theirs being evidently engaged by the owners, of, goods, who rather travels alongwith them, hence, therein, for, the requisite, holistic/beneficial, afore, hence facilitative purpose(s), (xi)and, when, vis-a-vis, the afore factum probandum, the, relevant evidence rather exists, thereupon, they stand bestowed with an apt permissible capacity, whereupon, the fastening, of the apposite indemnificatory liability, upon, the insurer, is, apt. 6. 6. Be that as it may, the learned counsel, for, the insurer has also contended with much vigour, before this Court, that, with the driving licence, as, held by the driver, of the offending vehicle, upon, becoming verified, by the Investigator Officer concerned, from, the relevant RLA, it being found, to, become not issued therefrom, hence, the findings, rendered upon, the apposite issue, as, appertaining to the validity of the driving licence, rather becoming infirm. However, the afore submission, cannot be accepted, as, neither the person wheretowhom, the information, embodied in Ex.RW2/H, become purveyed, stepped into the witness box, to prove qua his authoring, the, application borne in Ex.RW2/E, and, nor the author of Ex.RW2/H, stepped into the witness box, for, proving the contents thereof. Wants, of, proof, of, aforesaid authorship, of, the recitals borne in Ex.RW2/H, and, in Ex. RW3/E, hence, unveiling, vis-a-vis, the driving licence, of, the driver, of, the offending vehicle, and, embodied in Ex. RW1/A, becoming not issued from the RLA concerned,rather disables, the, afore documents to carry, hence, the requisite efficacy or tenacity. 7. The learned counsel, appearing for the insurer, has also contended, that, the compensation determined, vis-a-vis, the successors-in-interest of the deceased, being exorbitant, and, he submits that the computation, of, per diem wages, of, the deceased in a sum of Rs.200/- by the learned tribunal, and, its thereafter making the requisite computation of compensation, vis-a-vis, the claimants, being astray, from the evidence, as, no tangible evidence qua therewith rather became adduced. However, the afore submission, is, unaccepatable, as, the computation, in, a sum of Rs.200/-, hence, per diem wages, of, the deceased, does not appear either gross or exorbitant, nor does, the, thereafter made computation of compensation, by the learned tribunal, vis-a-vis, the claimants appears to be unjust, and, unfair. 8. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal filed by the insurer is dismissed, and, the award rendered by the learned tribunal, is, affirmed, and, maintained. All pending applications also stand disposed of. Records be sent back forthwith.