JUDGMENT : 1. These appeals are filed by the Insurance Company questioning the common awards passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nagapattinam, dated 24.03.2020 and 24.03.2020. Since 104 persons travelled in a Mini Bus and sustained injury from the same accident, all these claim petitions were taken up for hearing in two batches and disposed of by an award dated 24.03.2020 and 24.03.2020. Since the claim in these appeals are arising out of same accident, all these appeals are taken up together for hearing. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking before the Tribunal. 3. It is the case of the claimants that all of them travelled in a Mini Bus named Narmadha bearing registration No.TN-59N-0191 on 03.10.2017. When the Mini Bus was proceeding from South to North towards Nagapattinam, the same was driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner. When the Mini Bus came near Sikkal-Ponveli, due to the rash and negligent driving of its driver, the Mini Bus got toppled and fell down into a Channel. The said accident resulted in injury to 104 passengers who travelled in the Mini bus. Hence, 104 separate claim petitions have been filed by the injured passengers seeking compensation. 4. The first respondent/owner of the Mini bus remained ex-parte before the Tribunal and the claim was opposed only by the second respondent/insurer of the Mini Bus by filing counter. The claim was opposed by the insurer mainly on the ground that the policy of Insurance covered only 24 passengers and one driver and hence the insurer was not liable to meet the claim of more than 25 passengers. It was stated that permitted seating capacity of the Mini bus was only 25[24 persons+1 driver] and the liability of the Insurance company was confined to the number of persons covered by the policy and not beyond the same. It was also stated that the owner of the bus by permitting more passengers exceeding the seating capacity of the vehicle to travel in the bus flagrantly violated the terms and conditions of the policy and hence the insurer was not liable to pay any compensation. 5. Before the Tribunal, the injured claimants examined themselves and through them, the accident registers and the discharge summaries issued by Nagapattinam Government Hospital have been marked, apart from FIR and other documents. 5. Before the Tribunal, the injured claimants examined themselves and through them, the accident registers and the discharge summaries issued by Nagapattinam Government Hospital have been marked, apart from FIR and other documents. On behalf of the second respondent an Assistant from Regional Transport Office was examined as RW.1 and the Senior Legal Officer of the second respondent office was examined as RW.2. On behalf of the respondents, seven documents were marked including the copy of the insurance policy. 6. The Tribunal based on the evidence available on record came to the conclusion that the accident had occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of Mini Bus by its driver. The Tribunal quantified the compensation payable to the each of the claimants at Rs.30,000/-. The Tribunal directed the second respondent to deposit the award amount with interest on behalf of the first respondent. It also clarified that the liability of the second respondent was confined only to 25 persons and therefore in respect of the claimants over and above 25 members, the second respondent is entitled to the benefit of pay and recovery. Aggrieved by the said awards passed by the Tribunal, the second respondent/Insurance Company filed these appeals. 7. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant vehemently contended that the first respondent/owner of the vehicle violated the policy conditions by allowing more passengers than the permitted seating capacity of the vehicle and thereby violated policy conditions. In view of the said violation, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay the compensation amount. 8. The learned counsel further submitted that the passengers in excess of the permitted seating capacity shall be treated as unauthorized persons, therefore, they cannot be treated as a 3 rd party within the meaning of Motor Vehicles Act to fasten the statutory liability on the insurer. On the question of quantum, the learned counsel submitted that out of 104 injured passengers, only 22 persons suffered simple injuries and remaining 82 persons did not suffer any external injuries. Therefore, according to him, the uniform amount of Rs.30,000/- awarded by the Tribunal was on higher side and the same requires reduction. 9. In support of his contention, the learned counsel relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Anjana Shyam and others, 2007 (7) SCC 445 . 10. Therefore, according to him, the uniform amount of Rs.30,000/- awarded by the Tribunal was on higher side and the same requires reduction. 9. In support of his contention, the learned counsel relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Anjana Shyam and others, 2007 (7) SCC 445 . 10. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents/claimants would submit that all the passengers who travelled in the bus suffered serious injuries as seen from the accident registers and discharge summaries issued by the Government Hospital and therefore, the Tribunal was justified in awarding compensation of Rs.30,000/- (each). The learned counsel further submitted that even though the permitted seating capacity of the Mini Bus is only 25, all the passengers travelled in the bus shall be treated as 3 rd parties and hence the insurer is liable to pay compensation and insofar as passengers exceeding the seating capacity are concerned, the insurer can recover the amount by proceeding against the owner. 11. In support of her contention, the learned counsel relied on the following judgments: (i) National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Baljit Kaur and others, (2004) 2 SCC 1 (ii) United India Insurance Company Limited Vs. K.M. Poonam and others, (2015) 15 SCC 297 12. A perusal of the records would indicate that the claimants who were all passengers in the ill-fated Mini Bus entered the box and deposed about the negligent driving of driver of the Mini bus. It is seen that the Mini Bus toppled and fell into a channel and no other 3 rd party vehicle is involved. Ex.P1-FIR indicates that the criminal case was filed against the driver of the Mini Bus. Therefore, based on the evidence of PWs and the contents of FIR as Ex.P1, the Tribunal was justified in arriving at a factual conclusion that the accident had occurred only due to the negligence on the part of the driver of the Mini Bus and the said factual conclusion is affirmed. 13. It is not in dispute that the policy of the insurance covered only 25 passengers. However, 104 passengers travelled in the Mini Bus. 13. It is not in dispute that the policy of the insurance covered only 25 passengers. However, 104 passengers travelled in the Mini Bus. Section 58(2) (d) of Motor Vehicles Act stipulates that a registering authority, when registering a transport vehicle shall enter in the certificate of registration, the number of passengers for whom accommodation is provided in the vehicle, which is used for carriage of passengers solely. Admittedly, the Mini Bus is a stage carrier bus used for carriage of passengers. In the case on hand, the capacity of the bus is 24 passengers + one driver. In these circumstances, allowing more than permitted number of passengers in a Mini Bus is certainly a violation of policy conditions. The contract of Insurance between the respondents 1 and 2 has clearly restricted the liability of the second respondent insurer to the extent of 25 passengers. Therefore, the insurer is liable only to the extent of 25 passengers and in respect of the remaining passengers, only the owner of the vehicle is liable. In this regard, it would be appropriate to refer to the decision of the Apex Court in Anjana Shyam case cited supra, wherein, the Apex Court held thus: ''15. Section 58 of the Act makes special provisions in regard to transport vehicles. Sub-Section (2) provides that a registering authority, when registering a transport vehicle, shall enter in the record of registration and in the certificate of registration various particulars. Clause (d) provides that if the vehicle is used or adapted to be used for carriage of passengers, the number of passengers for whom accommodation is provided. Thus the registration of the vehicle, which alone makes it usable on the road, records the number of passengers to be carried and the certificate of registration also contains that entry. So, an Insurance Company insuring the passengers carried in a vehicle in terms of Section 147(1)(b)(ii) of the Act, can only insure such number of passengers as are shown in the certificate of registration. 16. The position is reinforced by Section 72 of the Act, which deals with grant of stage carriage permits. Sub-Section (2) provides that when a permit is decided to be granted for a stage carriage, the Regional Transport Authority can attach to the permit one or more of the conditions specified therein. 16. The position is reinforced by Section 72 of the Act, which deals with grant of stage carriage permits. Sub-Section (2) provides that when a permit is decided to be granted for a stage carriage, the Regional Transport Authority can attach to the permit one or more of the conditions specified therein. Clause (vii) is the condition regarding the maximum number of passengers that may be carried in a stage carriage. Overloading also invites a consequence which can be termed penal. Section 86 of the Act provides for cancellation of a permit if any condition contained in the permit is breached. Therefore, the apparent wide words of Section 147(1)(b)(ii) of the Act have to be construed harmoniously with the other provisions of the Act, namely, Sections 58 and 72 of the Act. 17. As early as in 1846, Dr. Lushington in R.V. Eduljee Byramjee [(1846) 3 MIA 468] posited that to ascertain the true meaning of a clause in a statute the court must look at the whole statute, at what precedes and at what succeeds and not merely at the clause itself. This Court has accepted this approach in innumerable cases. Thus, the expression 'any passenger' must be understood as passenger authorized to be carried in the vehicle and 'use of the vehicle' as permitted use of the vehicle. Affording of insurance for more number of passengers than permitted, would be illegal since in that case the manifest intention would be the overloading of the vehicle, something not contemplated by law. Thus, it is not possible to accept a contention that the insurance can be taken to cover more passengers than permitted by the certificate of registration and the permit as a stage carriage and that it will cover all the passengers overloaded. Of course, in these cases, there is no dispute that the insurance cover took in only the permitted number of passengers. ...... 22. Then arises the question, how to determine the compensation payable or how to quantify the compensation since there is no means of ascertaining who out of the overloaded passengers constitute the passengers covered by the insurance policy as permitted to be carried by the permit itself. As this Court has indicated, the purpose of the Act is to bring benefit to the third parties who are either injured or dead in an accident. It serves a social purpose. As this Court has indicated, the purpose of the Act is to bring benefit to the third parties who are either injured or dead in an accident. It serves a social purpose. Keeping that in mind, we think that the practical and proper course would be to hold that the Insurance Company, in such a case, would be bound to cover the higher of the various awards and will be compelled to deposit the higher of the amounts of compensation awarded to the extent of the number of passengers covered by the insurance policy. 23. Illustratively, we may put it like this. In the case on hand, 42 passengers were the permitted passengers and they are the ones who have been insured by the Insurance Company. 90 persons have either died or got injured in the accident. Awards have been passed for varied sums. The Tribunal should take into account, the higher of the 42 awards made, add them up and direct the Insurance Company to deposit that lump sum. Thus, the liability of the Insurance Company would be to pay the compensation awarded to 42 out of the 90 passengers. It is to ensure that the maximum benefit is derived by the insurance taken for the passengers of the vehicle, that we hold that the 42 awards to be satisfied by the Insurance Company would be the 42 awards in the descending order starting from the highest of the awards. In other words, the higher of the 42 awards will be taken into account and it would be the sum total of those higher 42 awards that would be the amount that the Insurance Company would be liable to deposit. It will be for the Tribunal thereafter to direct distribution of the money so deposited by the insurance company proportionately to all the claimants, here all the 90, and leave all the claimants to recover the balance from the owner of the vehicle.'' 14. In the case on hand, 104 passengers got injured, there is no evidence available on record to fix 25 passengers who are covered by the policy. Therefore, as per the law laid down by the Apex Court, this Court holds that the Insurance Company is liable to satisfy 25 higher valued awards. 15. In the case on hand, 104 passengers got injured, there is no evidence available on record to fix 25 passengers who are covered by the policy. Therefore, as per the law laid down by the Apex Court, this Court holds that the Insurance Company is liable to satisfy 25 higher valued awards. 15. The next question to be decided is whether the Insurance Company shall be directed to deposit the amount for the remaining awards (excluding 25 highest value awards by invoking pay and recovery Rule). In this regard, it would be appropriate to refer to the judgment of the three member Bench of the Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Baljit Kaur , cited supra, which reads as follows: “20. It is therefore, manifest that in spite of the amendment of 1994, the effect of the provision contained in Section 147 with respect to persons other than the owner of the goods or his authorized representative remains the same. Although the owner of the goods or his authorized representative would now be covered by the policy of insurance in respect of a goods vehicle, it was not the intention of the legislature to provide for the liability of the insurer with respect to passengers, especially gratuitous passengers, who were neither contemplated at the time the contract of insurance was entered into, nor was any premium paid to the extent of the benefit of insurance to such category of people. 21. The upshot of the aforementioned discussions is that instead and in place of the insurer the owner of the vehicle shall be liable to satisfy the decree. The question, however, would be as to whether keeping in view the fact that the law was not clear so long such a direction would be fair and equitable. We do not think so. We, therefore, clarify the legal position which shall have prospective effect. The Tribunal as also the High Court had proceeded in terms of the decision of this Court in Satpal Singh (supra). The said decision has been overruled only in Asha Rani (supra). We, therefore, are of the opinion that the interest of justice will be sub- served if the appellant herein is directed to satisfy the awarded amount in favour of the claimant, if not already satisfied, and recover the same from the owner of the vehicle. The said decision has been overruled only in Asha Rani (supra). We, therefore, are of the opinion that the interest of justice will be sub- served if the appellant herein is directed to satisfy the awarded amount in favour of the claimant, if not already satisfied, and recover the same from the owner of the vehicle. For the purpose of such recovery, it would not be necessary for the insurer to file a separate suit but it may initiate a proceeding before the executing court as if the dispute between the insurer and the owner was the subject-matter of determination before the tribunal and the issue is decided against the owner and in favour of the insurer. We have issued the aforementioned directions having regard to the scope and purport of Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, in terms whereof, it is not only entitled to determine the amount of claim as put forth by the claimant for recovery thereof from the insurer, owner or driver of the vehicle jointly or severally but also the dispute between the insurer on the one hand and the owner or driver of the vehicle involved in the accident inasmuch as can be resolved by the tribunal in such a proceeding.” 16. In Baljit Kaur case cited supra, Supreme Court after coming to the categorical conclusion that gratuitous passengers in a goods vehicle will not be covered by the expression ''any person'' under Section 147 of Motor Vehicles Act held that only owner of the vehicle shall be liable to satisfy the decree of compensation obtained by them for the injuries suffered. However, in order to advance the cause of justice, the Apex Court directed the insurer to satisfy the award in favour of the claimants who are held to be gratuitous passengers and recover the same from the owner of the vehicle. 17. The Pay and Recovery Rule applied by the Apex Court in Baljit Kaur case was subsequently followed by the Apex Court in K.M.Poonam case cited supra. It is pertinent to point out that the accident in K.M.Poonam case had occurred on 18.08.2004, subsequent to the declaration of law by Apex Court in Baljit Kaur case. 17. The Pay and Recovery Rule applied by the Apex Court in Baljit Kaur case was subsequently followed by the Apex Court in K.M.Poonam case cited supra. It is pertinent to point out that the accident in K.M.Poonam case had occurred on 18.08.2004, subsequent to the declaration of law by Apex Court in Baljit Kaur case. The direction to pay and recovery passed in Baljit Kaur case was followed and applied in respect of the accident that had occurred subsequent to the delivery of judgment in Baljit Kaur case in K.M.Poonam case. The facts of K.M.Poonam case are similar to the facts of the case on hand before this Court. In K.M.Poonam case, policy of Insurance covered only 6 passengers, however, 15 passengers travelled in the vehicle. The Apex Court after having held that liability of the insurer would be confined to 6 persons only, proceeded to direct the Insurance company to deposit the award amount in respect of all the 15 passengers with liberty to recover the amount deposited by the Insurance company in excess of its liability from the owner of the vehicle. The relevant portion of the Apex Court judgment in K.M.Poonam case reads as follows: “36. The liability of the insurer, therefore, is confined to the number of persons covered by the insurance policy and not beyond the same. In other words, as in the present case, since the insurance policy of the owner of the vehicle covered six occupants of the vehicle in question, including the driver, the liability of the insurer would be confined to six persons only, notwithstanding the larger number of persons carried in the vehicle. Such excess number of persons would have to be treated as third parties, but since no premium had been paid in the policy for them, the insurer would not be liable to make payment of the compensation amount as far as they are concerned. However, the liability of the Insurance Company to make payment even in respect of persons not covered by the insurance policy continues under the provisions of sub-section (1) of Section 149 of the Act, as it would be entitled to recover the same if it could prove that one of the conditions of the policy had been breached by the owner of the vehicle. 37. 37. In the instant case, any of the persons travelling in the vehicle in excess of the permitted number of six passengers, though entitled to be compensated by the owner of the vehicle, would still be entitled to receive the compensation amount from the insurer, who could then recover it from the insured owner of the vehicle. ....... 39. The number of persons to be compensated being in excess of the number of persons who could validly be carried in the vehicle, the question which arises is one of apportionment of the amounts to be paid. Since there can be no pick and choose method to identify the five passengers, excluding the driver, in respect of whom compensation would be payable by the Insurance Company, to meet the ends of justice we may apply the procedure adopted in Baljit Kaur's case (supra) and direct that the Insurance Company should deposit the total amount of compensation awarded to all the claimants and the amounts so deposited be disbursed to the claimants in respect to their claims, with liberty to the Insurance Company to recover the amounts paid by it over and above the compensation amounts payable in respect of the persons covered by the Insurance Policy from the owner of the vehicle, as was directed in Baljit Kaur's case. 40. In other words, the Appellant Insurance Company shall deposit with the Tribunal the total amount of the amounts awarded in favour of the awardees within two months from the date of this order and the same is to be utilized to satisfy the claims of those claimants not covered by the Insurance Policy along with the persons so covered. The Insurance Company will be entitled to recover the amounts paid by it, in excess of its liability, from the owner of the vehicle, by putting the decree into execution. For the aforesaid purpose, the total amount of the six Awards which are the highest shall be construed as the liability of the Insurance Company. After deducting the said amount from the total amount of all the Awards deposited in terms of this order, the Insurance Company will be entitled to recover the balance amount from the owner of the vehicle as if it is an amount decreed by the Tribunal in favour of the Insurance Company. After deducting the said amount from the total amount of all the Awards deposited in terms of this order, the Insurance Company will be entitled to recover the balance amount from the owner of the vehicle as if it is an amount decreed by the Tribunal in favour of the Insurance Company. The Insurance Company will not be required to file a separate suit in this regard in order to recover the amounts paid in excess of its liability from the owner of the vehicle.” 18. The citation relied on by the learned counsel for the appellant is a decision of the two member Bench of the Apex Court, which was decided subsequent to delivery of the judgment by three member Bench of the Apex Court in Baljit Kaur case. In Anjana Shyam case, there was no reference about the law laid down by the Apex Court in Baljit Kaur case. However, in a subsequent judgment in K.M.Poonam case, the Apex Court referred to the earlier three member Bench decision in Baljit Kaur case and applied Pay and Recovery Rule exactly in a similar situation. Therefore, this Court holds that in respect of the claims over and above 25 passengers, the second respondent Insurance Company shall deposit the award amount with liberty to recover the excess amount deposited by it over and above the total value of 25 higher value awards from the owner of the vehicle. 19. As far as the quantum of compensation awarded in each of the claim petitions are concerned, it is the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that only in 22 cases, claimants suffered simple injuries and in respect of 82 cases, they have not suffered any external injuries. 20. A close scrutiny of the accident registers and the discharge summaries issued by the Government Hospital which were marked on the side of the claimants would indicate that in 21 cases, the claimants suffered some kind of injuries/abrasions. In other cases, there were no external injuries noted. In 83 cases, only pain/tenderness were noted. Therefore, the Tribunal was not justified in awarding a lumpsum amount of Rs.30,000/- in respect of all cases. 21. In the following 21 cases, the claimants suffered external injuries like abrasions/swelling/blunt injury/laceration: S. NO. CMA NO. CLAIMANT NAME MCOP NO. In other cases, there were no external injuries noted. In 83 cases, only pain/tenderness were noted. Therefore, the Tribunal was not justified in awarding a lumpsum amount of Rs.30,000/- in respect of all cases. 21. In the following 21 cases, the claimants suffered external injuries like abrasions/swelling/blunt injury/laceration: S. NO. CMA NO. CLAIMANT NAME MCOP NO. NATURE OF INJURIES INJURIES IP EXHIBIT NO 1 1087/2021 NANMARAN 71/2018 Abrasion Lt Elbow Abrasion Lt Hand Ternderness 2 days P103 & P104/35 2 1089/2021 MAHARAJOTHI 22/2018 Blunt Injury Blunt Injury to Rt Hand 3 Days P40 & P41/13 3 1028/2021 KANAKAMMAL 43/2018 Injury Injury Lt Forearm 3 Days P15 & P16/35 4 1041/2021 KALAIYARASI 96/2018 Abrasion Abrasion 2 x 1 CM over Lt Clavicle 3 Days P139 & P140/96 5 1096/2021 ARIVENDHAN 10/2018 Injury Lt Foot Injury 2 Days P31 &P32/13 6 1097/2021 MANJULA 6/2018 Abrasion Lt Cheek Abrasion Rt Knee Tenderness 3 Days P12 & P13/13 7 1099/2021 MANIKANDAN 11/2018 Laceration Laceration over Chest & Rt Hand 2 days P49 & P50/13 8 1104/2021 MINOR RAGHUL 45/2018 Tenderness Lt Hand Swelling & Tenderness and sustained injury in Lt hand and head 2 days P44 & P45/13 9 1110/2021 SINGARAVEL 74/2018 Injury Blunt Injury to Rt Thigh 2 days P45 & P46/35 10 1130/2021 MARAGATHAM 59/2018 Abrasion Forehead Abrasion 3 Days P115 & P116/59 11 1144/2021 ILLAYARAJA 20/2018 Abrasion Abrasion Lt Palm Abrasion Lt Elbow Co. Pain over Lt thigh 2 days P55 & P56/13 12 1023/2021 VEDHAVALLI 66/2018 Injury C/o. Head injury pain Lt. Pain over Lt thigh 2 days P55 & P56/13 12 1023/2021 VEDHAVALLI 66/2018 Injury C/o. Head injury pain Lt. forearm 3 days P101 & P102/35 13 1085/2021 RADHIKA 16/2018 Injury Injury to Lt Ankle 3 days P77 & P78/13 14 1007/2021 JEEVANANDHAM 24/2018 Injury C/o. Chest Pain/sustained injury to chest, chest tenderness 2 days P57 & P58/13 15 1014/2021 MOHANRAJ 111/2018 Injury Tenderness Rt chest and sustained injury to chest and right shoulder 2 days P143 & P144/111 16 1019/2021 PRAKASH KUMAR 64/2018 Injury Tenderness Lower Back and Tenderness Lt Elbow and injury to Lower back 2 days P99 and P100/35 17 1061/2021 MURALI 12/2018 Injury Tenderness and pain Lt shoulder and sustained injury to left shoulder 2 days P33 and P34/13 18 1049/2021 ARUN 100/2018 Injury C/o Chest pain and sustained injury to chest 2 days P67 and P68/13 19 1095/2021 RADHAKRISHNAN 21/2018 Injury Tenderness in chest and sustained chest injury 2 days P37 and P38/13 20 1114/2021 DEVADARSHINI 78/2019 Abrasion C/o chest pain and Abrasion below left eye Nil P117/79 21 1121/2021 ANBARASAN 75/2018 Injury Rt Knee pain and sustained injury right knee 2 days P47 and P48/35 22. In the following 83 cases, the claimants have not suffered any external injuries and they complain of pain/tenderness. 23. As discussed earlier, the Mini Bus got toppled and fell into a channel, therefore, certainly all the passengers travelled in the Mini Bus would have got hit by the body of the bus or things carried by the passengers. The passengers themselves would have dashed with each other. Even though no external injuries were noted in 83 cases, they complain of pain and tenderness in various parts of their body. The same may be due to the hit received by the passengers during the process of the toppling of the vehicle into the channel. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and the injuries noted in the accident registers, this Court feels that in respect of the 21 cases where injuries and abrasions were received by the claimants, they are entitled to Rs.30,000/- (each) as compensation. In respect of the other claimants who have not received any external injuries but only complain of pain and tenderness in various parts of the body are entitled to a sum of Rs.15,000/- (each) towards compensation for the pain and mental agony suffered by them. 24. CMA Nos. In respect of the other claimants who have not received any external injuries but only complain of pain and tenderness in various parts of the body are entitled to a sum of Rs.15,000/- (each) towards compensation for the pain and mental agony suffered by them. 24. CMA Nos. 995, 1255, 1243, 997, 999, 1002, 1003, 1005, 1008, 1009, 1010, 1011, 1012, 1013, 1016, 1017, 1018, 1020, 1022, 1052, 1053, 1054, 1055, 1056, 1057, 1058, 1059, 1060, 1079, 1080, 1081, 1082, 1083, 1084, 1088, 1024, 1025, 1029, 1032, 1034, 1035, 1036, 1037, 1039, 1040, 1042, 1043, 1044, 1045, 1047, 1048, 1050, 1090, 1091, 1092, 1094, 1098, 1100, 1101, 1102, 1103, 1105, 1106, 1107, 1108, 1109, 1113, 1116, 1117, 1120, 1123, 1124, 1131, 1125, 1132, 1127, 1133, 1129, 1134, 1135, 1145, 1021 and 1026 of 2021 are partly allowed, the compensation amount is reduced to Rs.15,000/- (each). 25. CMA Nos. 1087, 1089, 1028, 1041, 1096, 1097, 1099, 1104, 1110, 1130, 1144, 1023, 1085, 1007, 1014, 1019, 1061, 1049, 1095, 1114 and 1121 of 2021 are dismissed by affirming the award passed by the Tribunal. 26. The second respondent Insurance Company is liable to satisfy 25 higher value awards. Therefore, the Insurance Company is liable to the extent of Rs.6,90,000/- (21x30,000=6,30,000/- +4x15,000=60,000/-). The Insurance Company is liable to satisfy 21 cases, in which the award amount is fixed at Rs.30,000/- (each) and four other cases in which the award amount is fixed at Rs.15,000/- (each) and in respect of the remaining 79 cases, the Insurance Company is directed to deposit Rs.11,85,000/- (79x15,000=Rs.11,85,000/-). After depositing the amount to the credit of respective MCOPs, the insurer is entitled to proceed against the owner for the recovery of excess amount of Rs.11,85,000/ from the owner. On such deposit, the claimants are permitted to withdraw the award amount by making formal application before the Tribunal. No costs.