JUDGMENT : K.S. Jhaveri, J. All these appeals involve common questions on law and facts and hence, they are heard together and disposed of by this common order. These appeals have been preferred against ? the judgment and award dated 30.06.2011 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux.), Narmada at Rajpipla in M.A.C.Ps. No.202/2008 to 213/2008 whereby, the claim petitions were partly allowed and the respondent-Insurance Company was exonerated from the liability of making payment of compensation. 2. The facts in brief are that on 09.05.2008 the appellants, original claimants, boarded the Truck bearing registration No.GJ-4V- 5263 insured with the respondent-Insurance Company. It is the case of the appellants that they were working as Labourers and were hired as such for the purpose of loading/unloading the goods at Bhavnagar. While they were on their way from Ankleshwar, the Truck met with an accident on account of the alleged rash and negligent driving by the driver of the Truck. In the said accident, about thirteen labourers lost their lives and several sustained severe bodily injuries. The legal heirs of the deceased and the injured persons filed claim petitions before the Tribunal. The said claim petitions came to be disposed of by awards dated 30.06.2011. However, the Tribunal exonerated the respondent-Insurance Company from the liability of making payment of compensation. 3. Being aggrieved by the impugned awards insofar as the Insurance Company came to be exonerated by the Tribunal, the appellants, original claimants, have preferred the present appeals. 4. The main contention raised on behalf of the appellants is that the appellants, original claimants, were working as Labourers on the offending Truck and were discharging their duties as such when the accident in question took place. Hence, the Tribunal ought not to have exonerated the Insurance Company from the liability of making payment of compensation. 4.1 In the alternative, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that appropriate directions may be issued similar to what has been issued by this Court in another decision rendered in First Appeal No.1892/1999 dated 07.12.2001 more particularly. Para-10 which reads as under; "10. In that view of the matter, considering the decision of the Apex Court in the case of United India Assurance Co. Para-10 which reads as under; "10. In that view of the matter, considering the decision of the Apex Court in the case of United India Assurance Co. (supra), it would be just and proper to direct that the amount deposited by the insurance company shall not be allowed to be withdrawn till the time the owner makes the said payment. However, interest accruing on the same shall be paid to the claimants. It is made clear that if the claimants file execution proceedings within a period of three months from today against the owner and on payment by owner in the execution proceedings, the insurance company shall withdraw the principal amount. However, till the execution is filed and/or till the owner makes the payment qua the amount of liability of insurance company, the said amount shall continue to remain in Fixed Deposit. Order accordingly." 5. Heard learned counsel for the appellants. It was the specific case of the appellants before the Tribunal that on the date of accident while they were waiting for a Bus near Ankleshwar cross-roads, the offending vehicle - Truck arrived at the spot and it was agreed between the driver of the Truck and the deceased and injured persons that they shall be dropped at a place called Vataman cross-roads situated in Bhavnagar District, without charging any fare and in turn the deceased and injured persons shall unload the goods from the Truck. However, there is nothing on record to show that at the relevant time the offending vehicle - Truck was proceeding towards Bhavnagar. In fact, the documentary evidence on record shows that the Truck in question was loaded with goods at Daman and was proceeding towards Village Bavla situated in Ahmedabad District, which was its final destination. Both the places, viz. Bhavnagar and Ahmedabad, are situated in opposite directions. It is highly unbelievable that the claimants must have boarded the Truck at Ankleshwar for the purpose of unloading the goods at Bhavnagar when the final destination of the Truck is Ahmedabad. The documentary evidence on record does not support the story of the original claimants. If the original claimants were actual labourers, then they would not have boarded the Truck at Ankleshwar, i.e. in the mid-way journey of the Truck but, would have boarded it at its originating place, i.e. at Daman. 6. The documentary evidence on record does not support the story of the original claimants. If the original claimants were actual labourers, then they would not have boarded the Truck at Ankleshwar, i.e. in the mid-way journey of the Truck but, would have boarded it at its originating place, i.e. at Daman. 6. Further, the Truck in question has been registered as a 'goods vehicle'. The appellants, original claimants, were travelling as gratuitous/unauthorized passengers at the relevant point of time and hence, the respondent-Insurance Company cannot be held liable to make payment of compensation in view of the principle laid down by the Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited v. Rattani & Ors., (2009) 2 SCC 75 . 7. Considering the facts of the case and in view of the principle laid down in the above decision, the Tribunal was completely justified in exonerating the respondent-Insurance Company from the liability of making payment of compensation. I am in complete agreement with the reasonings given by the Tribunal in the impugned awards and hence, find no reasons to interfere with the same. 8. For the foregoing reasons, the appeals stand summarily rejected. Appeal dismissed.