JUDGMENT : SURESHWAR THAKUR, J. FAO No. 145 of 2015, stands instituted by the insurer of the truck, bearing No. HP23A-1453, qua whose driver, findings became rendered in the impugned award, vis-a-vis, his being a co-tortfeasor in the relevant collision, which occurred, inter-se, the afore truck hence driven, at the relevant time, by co-respondent No.5 (Javitar Singh), and, vehicle bearing No. HP56-5414, rather driven, at the relevant time by co-respondent No.2 (Vinod Kumar). 2. FAO No. 193 of 2015, stands instituted, by the insurer of vehicle bearing No. HP-56- 5414, qua, whose driver also alike findings, in, as much as, his being co-tortfeasor alongwith corespondent No.4 (Javitar Singh), hence, became returned. 3. The afore challenges, are, mounted upon an award pronounced, upon, MACP No. RBT 95-A-P/II/14/13, hence, by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (I) Kangra at Dharamshala, and, their respective challenges are, vis-a-vis, the validity (s), of, saddling, of, indemnificatory liability qua them, vis-a-vis, the compensation amount, as, determined thereunder. 4. However, the claimant, has also, through casting FAO No. 92 of 2015, made, a challenge, vis-a-vis, the compensation amount determined qua him, in as much, as, despite his becoming encumbered, with, cent percent functional disability, upon his person, in, sequel to the relevant mishap, yet compensation amount, in, consonance therewith, rather remaining un-assessed, qua, him. 5. Through, the impugned award, hence, compensation amount borne in a sum of Rs.35,86,000/- became awarded, vis-a-vis, the claimant, and, thereon interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum became levied, and, it was ordered to commence from filing of the petition, till, its realization. The insurer (s), of, the offending vehicles, were, encumbered with, the, apposite liabilities, to, indemnify the claimant, vis-a-vis, the afore determined compensation amount. 6. The learned counsel (s), appearing for the insurer (s) concerned, in FAO No. 145, and, in FAO No.193 of 2015, make a conjoint motion before this Court, vis-a-vis, inapt findings becoming rendered, upon, the issue appertaining, to, the relevant mishap, being a sequel of rash, and, negligent manner of driving of the afore vehicles, by their respective drivers. 6. The learned counsel (s), appearing for the insurer (s) concerned, in FAO No. 145, and, in FAO No.193 of 2015, make a conjoint motion before this Court, vis-a-vis, inapt findings becoming rendered, upon, the issue appertaining, to, the relevant mishap, being a sequel of rash, and, negligent manner of driving of the afore vehicles, by their respective drivers. The afore submission, is, founded, upon, (i) the factum that with, the, FIR, vis-a-vis, the relevant mishap becoming, reported, by one Vinod Kumar Son, of, Shri Dharam Singh, to, the Police Station concerned, on, 29.3.2010, (ii) and, with therein no narration becoming embodied qua the identity of the offending truck concerned, (iii) besides, when in the report made under Section 173 of the Cr.P.C, and, as, instituted before the learned Magistrate concerned, rather contrary thereto, echoings becoming borne therein, vis-a-vis, both the offending vehicles concerned, rather being involved in the relevant mishap, and, also with, ascription (s), of, negligence becoming made, vis-a-vis, the drivers, of, the vehicles concerned, (iv) reiteratedly though not initially becoming narrated, in, the apposite FIR, (v) thereupon, rendering a befitting conclusion, vis-a-vis, a tainted investigation being conducted into the FIR, and, also the purportedly consonant therewith, report made under Section 173 of Cr.P.C, by the Investigation Officer concerned, being a sequel of sheer concoction, and, it not being amenable, for, concluding, visa- vis, the drivers, of, the offending vehicle (s), being co-tortfeasors. 7. However, the afore submission is extremely weak and falters, as, (i) the informant concerned, is, respondent No.2 (Vinod Kumar), who, stepped into the witness box, as, RW-1, and, in his examination-in-chief, he has accepted, the, factum qua his reporting the incident to the police, and, he has also accepted, that, in consonance therewith, FIR borne in Ex. PW-1/B, becoming lodged. Consequently, non-mentioning therein, vis-a-vis, the vehicle driven by respondent No. 5 (Javitar Singh), rather not constraining, any, conclusion, vis-a-vis, the non-involvement in the relevant mishap, rather of the offending truck, hence driven, at, the relevant time, by, co-respondent No. 5 (Javitar Singh). 8. PW-1/B, becoming lodged. Consequently, non-mentioning therein, vis-a-vis, the vehicle driven by respondent No. 5 (Javitar Singh), rather not constraining, any, conclusion, vis-a-vis, the non-involvement in the relevant mishap, rather of the offending truck, hence driven, at, the relevant time, by, co-respondent No. 5 (Javitar Singh). 8. Even though, the claimant (Vijay Kumar), upon, his stepping into the witness box, as, PW-1, during, the course of his examination-in-chief, has tendered, his affidavit, and, wherein he has contrary, to the recitals, borne in the FIR, made, ascriptions, vis-a-vis, both respondent No.2 (Vinod Kumar) and respondent No. 5 (Javitar Singh), being co-tortfeasors, (a) and, even during the course of his cross-examination, as, conducted upon him, by the learned counsel for the insurance company concerned, he has yet maintained with firmness, the stand embodied, in, his examination-in-chief, vis-a-vis, both the afore respondents No.2 and 5 being the apt tortfeasors, (b) whereupon, given his remaining unscathed, during, the ordeal of his rigorous cross-examination, renders meteing of credence to his deposition (s) being both appropriate, and, also apt. Moreover, with RW-1, in, his cross-examination, as, conducted, upon him, by the learned counsel for respondents No. 4 and 6, rather acquiescing, to a suggestion, vis-a-vis, his alongwith co-respondent Javitar Singh hence becoming tried, for, commission of offence punishable under Section 279 of I.P.C (a) thereupon, it appears that respondent No.2/RW-1, who, lodged the FIR, had, strived to make untenable leverages, from, the factum of his reporting the incident, conspicuously, when, it, emerges, on, a reading of his cross-examination, wherein despite, his making the afore acquiescence, he rather feigns ignorance qua Javiter Singh, the driver of the offending truck, fleeing from the spot, in, sequel to the collision which occurred inter-se the offending vehicle, driven by him, and, the one driven by the afore Javitar Singh, (b) thereupon, it appears that Javitar Singh alongwith his truck rather fleeing from the site of accident, hence, reiteratedly, the afore factum constrained hence RW-1 to ascribe only, vis-a-vis, the afore Javitar Singh qua the latter committing the tort of negligence, rather merely, for, escaping his inculpation, from, the requisite penal misdemeanor (s). Moreso, when he has also tacitly hidden the name and identity, of, the vehicle and also the driver thereof, whereas, he while stepping, into, the witness box, has made the afore acquiescing narration vis-a-vis, his alongwith Javiter Singh rather facing a trial, for, commission of an offence punishable under Section 279 of I.P.C, and, therealongwith, with PW-2 (Suresh Kumar), who, was also aboard the vehicle at the relevant time, hence making testification, vis-a-vis, it being driven by RW-1, and, further with his, in his examination-in-chief, ascribing, vis-a-vis, RW-1 alongwith Javitar Singh, being the co-tortfeasors in the relevant mishap, hence, involving the relevant vehicles, and, besides conjoining therewith, the recorded statement (s) made, in, consonance therewith, by the claimant, (i) rather begets a conclusion, vis-a-vis, both Vinod Kumar and Javiter Singh, being the respective co-tortfeasors. Consequently, the findings returned by the learned Tribunal, vis-a-vis, both the afore committing, hence, the, tort of negligence, in, driving their respective vehicles, do not suffer from any vice ,of, any infirmity. 9. Be that as it may, the afore conclusion, would beget also a further concomitant inference, vis-a-vis, the fastening of apposite indemnificatory liability, upon, the insurer (s) concerned, rather becoming both apt and tenable, (i) since though, the claimant one Shri Vijay Kumar, who was aboard vehicle bearing registration No. HP56-5414, for, his traveling therein, to Jalandhar, for, purchasing therefrom hence vegetables, given, his being engaged in the avocation, of, vegetable vendor. However, when at the relevant time, in the afore vehicle rather no goods and vegetables became carried, (i) consequently, the learned counsel for the insurer (s) concerned, contend that the imperative necessity, of, the owner of the goods or vegetables also being aboard, on the apposite vehicle, rather alongwith the apt goods, becoming not meted apt satiation, (ii) and, thereafter they contend that, the, claimant, was construable to be a 'gratuitous passenger’, hence, aboard, the, vehicle driven by respondent No. 2, and, thereafter they further contend, that, the carrying of PW-1, in the offending jeep, at the relevant time, being in the capacity of a 'gratuitous passenger’ therein, (iii) thereupon, the, terms and conditions of the policy (s), becoming breached, and, when the afore breach remains un-encapsulated, in, the apposite therewith provisions, as, borne in Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act, thereupon, even the, adoption of the principle of 'pay and recover’ by this Court, being unamenable for recoursing. 10. 10. The afore contention reared by the learned counsel for the insurer (s) is made dependent, upon, keen and circumspect appraisal, of, a case titled as National Insurance Co. Ltd. versus Maghi Ram and others, reported in 2010 ACJ 2096 , the relevant paragraphs 10 to 13 whereof are extracted hereinafter, (i) wherein, an expostulation of law occurs, vis-a-vis, the apposite goods, becoming enjoined to be “normally carried” in the offending vehicle concerned, rather, at the relevant time. However, thereafter in paragraph 13 thereof, the effect of the afore phrase “normally carried” in the vehicle (s) appears to stand ascribed, a, connotation, vis-a-vis, it not casting any rigid or inflexible tenet, vis-a-vis, at the relevant time, of, the mishap rather involving the offending vehicles, hence happening, hence thereat, compulsorily and imperatively, the, apposite goods also becoming borne therein. The afore connotation is visibly apparent, and, also upsurges, from a reading, of, paragraph 13 thereof, wherein, the Court, after considering the tenacity, of, narration made therein, by the claimant, vis-a-vis, the offending thereat vehicle becoming hired, for, its traveling up to the apt destination, wherefrom the relevant goods, were to be purchased, and, thereafter were to be loaded in the vehicle rather, for, want of evidence in satiation thereto, hence repelled, the afore submission: “10. The statement of PW-5 is apparently a false statement. This Court can take judicial notice of the fact that whenever truck is hired through the Truck Operators Union, an entry is bound to be made. This is because the unions have been formed to ensure that all the truck owners get their clients) in turn. The statement of PW-5 is contrary to the statement of he owner of the truck. In any event no record had been produced to show that the truck was hired. Statement of this witness is also contrary to that of the claimant. According to this witness, the claimant had hired truck through the union on a number of occasions. However, the claimant has categorically stated that he never hired a truck through the union. 11. This Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Hans Raj, FAO No. 386 of 2001 ; decided on 19.10.2005, had rejected the claim where the truck was hired to carry the mangoes for sale from Dehra to Delhi. However, the claimant has categorically stated that he never hired a truck through the union. 11. This Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Hans Raj, FAO No. 386 of 2001 ; decided on 19.10.2005, had rejected the claim where the truck was hired to carry the mangoes for sale from Dehra to Delhi. After the owner of the mangoes had sold the same at Delhi, he was returning in the same truck which met with an accident. It was held that he cannot be said to be the owner of the goods. 12. It is important to note that under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 as amended in 1994, the insurance company is liable in respect of death or bodily injury to any person including the owner of the goods or his authorized representative carried in the vehicle. The Legislature in its wisdom has not used the words “hirer of the goods” but has used the words” owner of the goods” carried in the vehicle. Therefore, it is apparent that the goods must normally be carried in the vehicle. 13. In the present case, the story of the claimant does not appear to be true. It cannot be believed that even before buying apple crates a person would hire a truck to pick up the apple crate. There is no evidence on record that the claimant had already purchased the wooden crate from some party. As already mentioned above even the truck driver was not examined. Therefore I am of the considered view that the claimant-injured was not the owner of the goods but only a gratuitous passenger in the truck.” 11. However, in paragraph 13, this Court, though, dispelled the vigor of the evidence, as, adduced by the claimant therein, and, it thereafter rather concluded, vis-a-vis, the capacity, of, the claimant therein, being not, as, the owner of the goods, rather, his becoming aboard, hence in the thereat vehicle, in, the capacity, of, a 'gratuitous passenger’. However, in paragraph 13, this Court, though, dispelled the vigor of the evidence, as, adduced by the claimant therein, and, it thereafter rather concluded, vis-a-vis, the capacity, of, the claimant therein, being not, as, the owner of the goods, rather, his becoming aboard, hence in the thereat vehicle, in, the capacity, of, a 'gratuitous passenger’. Consequently, hence all the afore discussions hence existing in the judgment (supra), would foster a conclusion, (a) that, upon cogent evidence emerging, vis-a-vis, the apposite offending vehicle, proceeding to the apt destination, for, enabling the hirer, of, the apposite vehicle, to therefrom, after purchasing goods, hence load them onto the hired vehicle, whereon, the hirer, was, also aboard at the relevant time, rather permitting the fastening, of, apposite indemnificatory liability, upon, the insurer, of, the goods vehicle. However, firm and formidable evidence is enjoined to be existing on record, vis-a-vis, the afore propagation, made by the hirer of the vehicle, for, his hence falling within, the exception, vis-a-vis, the general rules, qua, at the relevant time rather goods being also aboard, the, vehicle besides for also his becoming aptly leveraged, to, draw sustenance, from, the ascribable connotation, as, made, to, the phrase “normally carried”, as held, in the judgment (supra). 12. The afore inference also gathers sustenance, from, a judgment titled as United India Insurance Co. Ltd. versus Suresh K.K and another, reported in 2008 ACJ 1741 , relevant paragraph 7 whereof, is, extracted hereinafter, (i) and, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court, had dwelt, upon the conundrum, as, appertaining to the offending vehicle concerned, after unloading the goods, as, previously carried therein, up to, the relevant destination, and, yet the owner, of, the hitherto therein carried goods rather becoming borne therein, (ii) whereupon, it concluded qua the insurer of the offending vehicle, becoming amenable for saddling of the apposite indemnificatory liability, hence, on his evidently returning in the hired vehicle, from the apt destination, towards his home, and, his afore capacity not being construable, to be, as a 'gratuitous passenger’ therein: “7. A sum of Rs.1,19,300 was awarded in favour of the claimant with interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum. Appellant preferred an appeal before the High Court in terms of Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. A sum of Rs.1,19,300 was awarded in favour of the claimant with interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum. Appellant preferred an appeal before the High Court in terms of Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The High Court negatived the contention of the appellant that the word 'goods’ was used in section 147 of the Act, would not be referable to the word 'carried’ stating: “According to us, the language of the amended provision does not show that the owner or the representative must accompany the goods or his representative who hires the vehicle, travels in the hired vehicle from the place of hiring to the place where the goods are to be loaded into the vehicle and then proceeds to travel along with the goods. It is also common that after unloading the goods such passengers travel in the same vehicle to the place from where they commenced journey. The passenger does so and is allowed to do so in his capacity as the owner of the goods or his representative who has hired the vehicle for transporting goods. The amended provision makes it explicitly clear that the word 'carried’ qualifies the owner of goods or his representatives and not the goods carried. If goods are found inside the vehicle at the time of accident, it is a clinching circumstance to establish that the passenger who claims to be the owner of the goods or the owner’s representative was traveling in that capacity. Chances of passengers or the insured raising false claims in this regard cannot be safe method to ascertain the intention of the legislature. False claims can be disapproved by the insurer by adducing materials and evidence and also by raising appropriate contentions. In our view, such issues are matters of evidence and will not stand scrutiny while construing a beneficial provision intended to compensate the loss caused to innocent victims of motor accidents. The party who claims that the person who died or sustained injury as the owner of the goods or the representative of the owner of the goods shall discharge the burden cast on him. Merely for the reason that the benefit granted will be misused, it will not be proper to give a narrow interpretation to the above provision. The party who claims that the person who died or sustained injury as the owner of the goods or the representative of the owner of the goods shall discharge the burden cast on him. Merely for the reason that the benefit granted will be misused, it will not be proper to give a narrow interpretation to the above provision. We, therefore, hold that owner or the unauthorised representative need not invariably be shown to accompany the goods at the time the goods carriage meets with accident causing injury to or resulting in the death of the passenger who is either the owner of the goods or the authorized representative of the owner of the goods” 13. Though, the facts hereat are slightly different, and, appertain to goods becoming yet borne in the relevant vehicle, given the offending vehicle becoming hired by the claimant, for, traveling up to Jalandhar, for, his therefrom fetching vegetables, and, thereafter, his intending to load them, on to, the offending vehicle, yet, the afore scenario, does become, covered by a judgment rendered by this Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. versus Maghi Ram and others, (i) especially for the reasons, as, unless the afore scenario is concluded to not ensure the saddling, of, the apposite indemnificatory liability upon the insurer, (ii) thereupon, the salutary and holistic purpose ingrained, behind the apt beneficial provisions becoming frustrated, and, also becoming untenably defeated, dehors in the hirer of the vehicle, who, proceeds therein, upto the apt destination, rather for a contractually covenanted purpose (iii) besides would beset, the, evident hirer of the goods vehicle, who, at the relevant time, though, is carried therein, dehors, his prospective purchases hence, of goods not becoming borne therein, given, the hirer, of, the vehicle, hence, evidently rather hiring it for enabling his purchasing the goods from the apt destination for, thereafter his loading them, on the offending vehicle rather becoming precluded to rear, a, valid claim against the insurer, of, the vehicle concerned. 14. Moreover though the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in United India Insurance Co. 14. Moreover though the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. versus Suresh K.K and another (supra) contains a factual scenario contradistinct vis-a-vis the factual scenario hereat, (i) nonetheless the logical foundation thereof is (a) goods at the relevant time though becoming not borne in the relevant vehicle (b) yet, the hirer of the goods vehicle, rather being enjoined to be borne therein (c) though inter-se-connectivity therewith though does exist hereat, yet, with a minimal difference, in as much, as, therein the goods after being unloaded at the apt destination, the owner thereof, yet becoming borne in the hired vehicle, for, ensuring his returning hence in the vehicle concerned, to his homestead, (ii) nonetheless the afore minimal difference is yet an analogically commonality, in as much, as, the goods not becoming borne in the hereat offending vehicle concerned, rather their owners becoming enjoined to be occupying, the, goods vehicle, (iii) hence the afore analogical commonality also becomes obviously the analogically applicable hereat apt parameter. Moreso, when, for, the reasons to be recorded hereinafter, bears out the trite factum probandum, vis-a-vis, apposite goods vehicle concerned, becoming evidently hired by the claimant, for, his traveling, up to the, Jalandahar, for his evidently therefrom hence purchasing vegetables, for his thereafter loading them, on to the vehicle concerned. 15. Be that as it may, since evidence was enjoined, to be adduced, vis-a-vis, the claimant becoming engaged in the avocation, of, a vegetable vendor, and, also, vis-a-vis, his for facilitating, the, afore avocation his proceeding to Jalandhar, in, the offending vehicle, to, procure vegetables therefrom, for, his thereafter loading them on, to, the offending vehicle concerned. However, the consonant evidence therewith, is, embodied in the testification of the claimant, and, is meted succor by PW-2, who also alongwith, the claimant hence was aboard the offending vehicle. However, the consonant evidence therewith, is, embodied in the testification of the claimant, and, is meted succor by PW-2, who also alongwith, the claimant hence was aboard the offending vehicle. The testifications of PW-1, and, PW-2 are rendered unerodingly, (i) thereupon, more specifically, with the claimant earlier also evidently traveling up to Jalandhar, for, therefrom his purchasing vegetables, factum whereof becomes unrebuttedly, hence deposed by the claimant, and, by PW-2, hence the regular visits of the claimant in the vehicle driven by RW-1, to, Jalandhar, hence for the afore purpose, does appear, to be a truthfully pleaded propagation, also qua wherewith truthful depositions, are, hence rendered by PW-1, and, by PW-2, (ii) whereupon it is inevitable to conclude, that, the judgment titled as National Insurance Co. Ltd. versus Maghi Ram and others (supra) entailing, the, necessity, of adduction of evidence vis-a-vis, (a) at the relevant time, goods, not becoming imperatively, hence becoming carried in the offending vehicle, (b) yet the hirer of the vehicle becoming carried therein, (c), and, rather requiring evidence becoming adduced, vis-a-vis, up to the relevant destination, the vehicle becoming hired, for, enabling the hirer of the vehicle, to, purchase goods therefrom, for, his hence thereafter, loading them on the hired vehicle, for, hence, thereupon the latter being not concluded to be, a, 'gratuitous passenger’ therein, (iii) conspicuously, when the afore stated inferences, as, drawn, from the evidence, on record, renders all the afore (s) hence becoming sufficiently and adequately proven, consequently, the fastening of the apposite liability, in, the impugned, upon, the insurer (s), does not suffer, from any infirmity. 16. The learned counsel for the insurer (s) in FAO No. 92 of 2015 contended that, despite, no documentary proof becoming adduced by the claimant, vis-a-vis, his rearing income borne in a sum of Rs.10,000/-, thereupon, the computation, as, made by the learned Tribunal, vis-a-vis, his per mensem income of Rs. 10,000/-, from his purported business, of, a vegetable vendor, and, also from his purported business of his operating a DJ Sound system, becoming amenable for interference. 17. 10,000/-, from his purported business, of, a vegetable vendor, and, also from his purported business of his operating a DJ Sound system, becoming amenable for interference. 17. However, the afore submission is frail, and, is unacceptable, as, both PW-1 and PW-2 have deposed, vis-a-vis, the afore facets, and, when both faced, the, ordeal of rigorous crossexamination, and, remained unscathed in ordeal thereof, (i) thereupon, it was imperative for them, to from, the area of village of the claimant, rather ensure stepping into the witness box, of, persons, for theirs making testifications, for belying the afore inter-se corroborative testifications, as, made by PW- 1, and, by PW-2, and, appertaining vis-a-vis the claimant, not deriving, any income, as computed, by the learned Tribunal, from, his avocations, as, a vegetable seller, and, from his operating, the, business of DJ sound system, (ii) whereas, the insurer concerned omitting to do so, hence constrains a conclusion, vis-a-vis, the afore omission also tantamounting, to, their accepting the depositions,as, made with inter-se corroboration by PW-1, and, by PW-2, and, vis-a-vis, the afore facets. 18. The claimant as revealed, by the disability certificate, has become encumbered with, a, 85% functional disability, and, the afore disability has been proven by PW-5, and, when therefrom it is to be inevitably concluded qua, (i) the petitioner being unable to perform his afore avocations, and when hence a per centum, of, functional disability stands entailed upon him, thereupon the assessment of compensation, vis-a-vis, him, under all heads except under the head “Compensation for Loss of income”, by the learned Tribunal, is, just and reasonable. 19. Nonetheless within the ambit of judgment reported in a case titled as National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi and others, reported in 2017 ACJ 2700 , hikes and accretions towards future prospects were also enjoined to meted, vis-a-vis, the afore per mensem income, of, the claimant, as, derived by him, from his afore avocations. However, the afore requisite hikes and accretions towards future prospects remains un-meted. Consequently, for, meteing the afore hikes and accretions, hence, towards future prospects, the age of the claimant is imperative. The birth certificate reveals qua the claimant being 35 years of age. However, the afore requisite hikes and accretions towards future prospects remains un-meted. Consequently, for, meteing the afore hikes and accretions, hence, towards future prospects, the age of the claimant is imperative. The birth certificate reveals qua the claimant being 35 years of age. Consequently, after meteing 40% apt increase (s), vis-a-vis, the apposite last drawn salary, thereupon, the relevant last drawn salary, of, the deceased, is recoknable to be Rs.14,000/- per month, and, thereupon his annual income is computed, to be in a sum of Rs.1,68,000/-, and, after applying thereon, the, apt multiplier, as mandated in a case titled as Sarla Verma & others versus Delhi Transport Corp. and another, reported in 2009 ACJ, 1298, the loss of income suffered by the petitioner, now, is, reassessed in a sum of Rs.1,68,000 x 15= Rs.25,20,000/. Therefore, the petitioner becomes entitled to compensation, under the head “loss of income”, to, the tune of Rs.25,20,000/. 20. In view of the afore observations, the appeals filed by the insurer (s) are dismissed, and, the appeal filed by the claimant is partly allowed, and, the impugned award, is, modified to the above extent only. All pending applications stand disposed of accordingly.