IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTRAKHAND AT NAINITAL. A.O. No. 132/2005 The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Haldwani (Nainital), through its Divisional Manager, Divisional Office, Nainital Road, Haldwani (Nainital) .... Appellant. Vs. 1. Rakesh Rawat S/o Tajwar Singh Rawat, 2. Satish Rawat S/o Tajwar Singh Rawat, 3. Santosh Rawat S/o Tajwar Singh Rawat, 4. Aashutosh Rawat S/o Tajwar Singh Rawat, 5. Tajwar Singh Rawat, Forest Officer, Kedarnath Forest Animal Division, All R/o of Range Colony Gopeshwar Thana Gopeshwar, District Chamoli. 6. Satyapal Singh S/o Gaanga Singh, R/o Village Gwad, Thana Gopeshwar District Chamoli ... Respondents. Sri D.K. Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant. Sri R.P. Nautiyal, Advocate for the respondents 1 to 5. AND A.O. No. 350 of 2005 The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Haldwani (Nainital), through its Divisional Manager, Divisional Office, Railway Road, Jwalapur, District Haridwar .... Appellant. Vs. 1. Kamla Negi, Headmistress, Primary School Dewaldhar, R/o Mandir Marg Gopeshwar Papdiyana, Tehsil and District Chamoli. 2. Satyapal Singh S/o Ganga Singh, R/o Village Goad P.S. Gopeshwar, Tehsil & District Chamoli ... Respondents. Sri D.K. Sharma, Advocate for the appellant. None responds on behalf of the respondents. Dated: 28-3-2008 Hon’ble B.C. Kandpal, J. Both these appeals arise out of the same accident therefore these appeals are being disposed of together by this common order. 2- Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 3- Sri R.O. Nautiyal, Advocate for the claimants/respondents in A/O. No. 132/2005 has invited my attention towards the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court dated 1-12-2005, passed in A/O. No. 128 of 2005, which indicates that the appeal filed by the claimants/respondents Rakesh Rawat and others for enhancement of the compensation granted by the tribunal was allowed and the amount of compensation was enhanced to Rs. 7,98,440/- instead of Rs. 3,43,600/- as awarded by the Tribunal vide judgment and award dated 24.12.2004. 4- As the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal has already been enhanced by the Divisional Bench of this Court vide the aforesaid judgment, I do not find any substance in these appeals, because in my opinion these appeals filed by the Insurance Company, in view of the judgment and order of the Division Bench of this Court dated 1.12.2005 have become infructuous. Further, I have also perused the material available on record and I am of the view that the impugned judgment and awards passed by the Tribunal do not require interference on merit. 5. Accordingly, both the appeals are dismissed. 6. Let a copy of this order be placed in the file of A.O. No. 350/2005, (B.C. Kandpal, J.) ISB