JUDGMENT P. K. MISRA, J. — These two appeals by the Insurance Company are directed against a common award passed by the Claims Tribu¬nal. Misc. Appeal No. 485/96 is directed against the award relat¬ing to claim of Bari Malik and Misc. Appeal No. 486/96 relates to claim of Sambaru Malik. Both the claim applications had been filed for injuries sustained by the claimants in an accident involving the truck bearing registration number ORG-4115 belong¬ing to respondent No. 2. Both the claimants had claimed that they were travelling in the truck as Coolies and had sustained in¬juries in an accident involving the truck. 2. The owner of the vehicle (present respondent No. 2 in each of the appeals) did not contest. The Insurance Company contested the claim applications by generally denying the allega¬tions made in the claim applications. It was also pleaded that the injured persons being passengers in the truck, the liability, if any, was to be met by the owner and not by the Insurance Company. 3. The Tribunal found that the accident occurred due to negligent driving of the truck driver and the claimants had sustained injuries in the said accident. Though the Tribunal discarded the plea that the claimant in each case was travelling as a Coolie, relying upon the endorsement in the Insurance policy that three passengers were allowed, it directed the compensation in respect of each of the injured-claimants to be paid by the Insurance Company. 4. In the present appeals, the only contention raised by the counsel for the appellant relates to the question of liability of the Insurance Company vis-a-vis that of the owner. It has been contended that in view of the finding that the injured-claimants were passengers in the truck, the liability should be borne by the owner and not by the Insurance Company. The learned counsels appearing for the claimants as well as the owner submitted that the injured-claimants should be taken to be Coolies in the truck and as such, the liability is covered. 5. These two claim applications along with another claim application relating to a death arising out of the very same accident, were heard together and one set of evidence had been led. The two injured persons examined as witnesses have categorically stated that they were travelling in the truck as Coolies. 5. These two claim applications along with another claim application relating to a death arising out of the very same accident, were heard together and one set of evidence had been led. The two injured persons examined as witnesses have categorically stated that they were travelling in the truck as Coolies. Such evidence has not been successfully challenged in cross-examination, nor any rebuttal evidence has been adduced on behalf of the Insurance Company. In view of such evidence on record, there was no justification for the Tribunal to discard the case of the injured-claimants that they were travelling in the truck as Coolies. 6. The learned counsel for the Insurance Company, however, submitted that mere oral evidence would not be sufficient and since the owner of the truck had remained ex parte, in the absence of any other documentary evidence, it must be held that the persons were travelling as passengers. It has been submitted that the owner of the truck was required to maintain register in accordance with the provisions contained in Motor Transport Workers Act, 1961 and in the absence of any such register, adverse inference should be drawn. Such contention cannot be accepted. The requirement if any, is of the owner and adverse inference, if any, is to be drawn against the owner and not against the employees. Moreover, the Insurance Company which had taken the plea that the injured persons were merely passengers has not bothered to adduce any evidence in support of its plea. In the absence of any materials on record, the unrebutted evi¬dence adduced on behalf of the injured-claimants should not have been discarded. For the aforesaid reasons, I hold that each of the claimants-injured was travelling in the truck as a coolie. 7. In view of the aforesaid conclusion, there cannot be any dispute that the Insurance Company is required to meet the li¬ability. However, in view of the provisions contained in Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, such liability is confined to the liability as envisaged under the Workmen’s Compensation Act. Of course, if the extent of such liability is less than the amount found payable by the Tribunal, the balance has to be paid by the owner. 8. However, in view of the provisions contained in Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, such liability is confined to the liability as envisaged under the Workmen’s Compensation Act. Of course, if the extent of such liability is less than the amount found payable by the Tribunal, the balance has to be paid by the owner. 8. For fixing the amount payable under the Workmen’s Compen¬sation Act so that such amount can be directed to be paid by the Insurance Company, it is necessary to find out the loss of earn¬ing capacity. However, there is no categorical evidence on record indicating about the loss of earning capacity. For the aforesaid purpose, the counsel for the appellant submitted that the matter may be remanded to the Claims Tribunal so that opportunity can be given to the parties to adduce further evidence on the question relating to loss of earning capacity. The counsel for the claim¬ant-respondents, on the other hand, submitted that the accident had occurred in the year 1992 and remanding the matter for this purpose at the present juncture would cause further delay and harassment. He has, therefore, submitted that the matter may be disposed of in the spirit of Lok Adalat by reducing the compensa¬tion, if necessary. 9. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made by counsels for parties, I think, interest of justice would be served by directing payment of Rs. 60,000/- (Rupees sixty thousand) to claimant-respondent No. 1 in Misc. Appeal No. 485/96 and Rs. 35,000/- (Rupees thirty five thousand) to claimant-respondent No. 1 in Misc. Appeal No. 486/96. In each of the appeals, a sum of Rs. 25,000/- had been deposited in this Court and kept in fixed deposit. The said amount along with accrued interest may be paid to claimant-respondent No. 1 in each of the appeals by way of account payee cheque by 15th November, 1999. The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the balance amount by 30th November, 1999, before the Claims Tribunal which shall be paid to claimant-respondent in each of the cases. 10. Subject to aforesaid modification and direction, both the appeals are allowed in part. There will be no order as to costs. Appeals allowed in part.