Honble MUKHERJI, C.J.–These five appeals arise out of the common judgment delivered by a learned Single Judge of this Court in 5 different Misc. Appeals which were preferred by the owners of the vehicle against the award passed by the Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal, Rajsamand. In the petitions before the Tribunal the owners of the vehicle as also the appellants before us, contended that claimants were not entitled to be granted any award as the victims boarded the vehicle in question as gratuituous passengers. The argument of learned counsel for the appellants before the learned Single Judge was sustained and it was held that claimants were not entitled to any compensatory award as regard `default liability claim was concerned. The reason given by the learned Single Judge was that the victims were passengers of a gratuitous character and a gratuitous passenger is not entitled to any claim. However, the amount of Rs. 7500=00 was paid to the claimants as `no fault liability. Learned Single Judge in the context observed : "In the result, all the appeals filed by the appellants are allowed. The Award dated 29-5-95 passed by the Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tri- bunal, Rajsamand is quashed and set aside. However, it may be observed that the insurance company, which has already paid the amount of Rs. 7500=00 to each of the claimants towards `No Fault Liability will not be entitled to recover this amount either from the owner of the vehicle or from the claimants." (2). It is against this observation of the learned Single Judge that the Insurance company has come up in appeal before this Court and has urged that when the liability of the owner has been negated by the court below then it was not open to the first appellate court to fasten liability on the shoulders of the Insurance Company because it is the liability of the owners, which is indemnified by the Insurance Company and, independent of the liability of the owners Insurance Company cannot be held liable to pay any amount. The Insurance Company has not challenged the entitlement of the victims for being granted the amounts as `No Fault Liability. The Insurance Company has not challenged the entitlement of the victims for being granted the amounts as `No Fault Liability. Counsel for the respondent-owners has submitted that the Insurance Company has been excluded of the liability under `Fault Liabilities claimed but as far as the `No Fault Liability is concerned, if any victim sustains any injury, the Insurance Company is to pay the compensation under law. (3). We have given our thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced. Since the claim was instituted with the consciousness of `fault liability and liability to pay compensation under `no- fault liability was not in question and was not con- tested seriously; the question has not even been gone in details by the learned Single Judge of this Court, the Tribunal awarded claims under `default liability and therefore, it was not required to address itself on this question. (4). We consider it appropriate that the question of `no-fault liability be examined by the Tribunal all over again by considering the case of the parties and let the Tribunal determine the question as to who will bear the burden of payments under `no-fault liability in between the owner & the insurer. As regard the claimants are concerned, they have already been paid the amounts. They need not have to the amounts. The Tribunal would determine as to whether the amount has to be paid by the owners or the insurer. (5). With these directions, these appeals stand allowed and the findings of surrender the learned Single Judge quoted hereinabove regarding responsibility of payment under `no-fault liability are set aside. A direction is issued to the Tribunal to determine the liability to pay amount under `no-fault liability to the claimants between the owners and the insurer. There will be no order as to costs. _