JUDGMENT Sanjay Karol, J. The challenge to the impugned award dated 31.3.2006 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (II), Shimla in M.A.C. No. 87-S/2 of 2002 titled as Meena Sharma & others vs. Tara Dutt Sharma & others, is on the ground that the findings by the Tribunal qua issue No.5 are perverse and illegal. According to the appellant, who is the insurer, the deceased was travelling as a gratuitous passenger at the time of accident. 2. Briefly stated the facts are that on 29.5.2002, Sh. Devinder Kumar Sharma was travelling in vehicle No. HP-13-0519 (Mahindera Pick-Up). The vehicle met with an accident near Chandi Mandir (Haryana). The vehicle was insured. Unfortunately, Sh. Devinder Kumar Sharma died on account of the fatal injuries sustained by him in the course of the accident. His legal heirs i.e. wife and two minor sons through their mother, filed a petition seeking compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The insurer, present appellant, while opposing the said petition, in the written statement took a defence that the deceased was travelling as a gratuitous passenger. Consequently there was breach of the terms of the insurance policy. 3. Based on the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed the following issues:- 1. Whether Devinder Kumar Sharma died in a motor accident caused by rash and negligent driving of a Mahindra Jeep (No. HP-13-0519) by Tara Dutt Sharma (respondent No.1) near Chandi Mandir, Panchkula (Haryana) on May 29, 2003? ...OPP 2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation on account of the accidental demise of Devinder Kumar Sharma. If so, to what amount and from whom? ...OPP 3. Whether the accident was attributable to rashness and negligence of the driver of another Mahindra Jeep (No. HP-14-8304) ...OPR1&2 4. Whether the petition is not maintainable in the present form? ...OPR3 5. Whether the deceased was travelling in the ill fated vehicle in the capacity of a gratuitous passenger so, its effect? ...OPR-3 6. Whether the offending vehicle was being plied in violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy? ..OPR-3 7. Whether the driver of the offending vehicle was not having a valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident? ...OPR-3 8. Relief. 4. ...OPR-3 6. Whether the offending vehicle was being plied in violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy? ..OPR-3 7. Whether the driver of the offending vehicle was not having a valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident? ...OPR-3 8. Relief. 4. Qua issue No.5, the Tribunal, after appreciating the evidence led by the parties, including the testimonies of the witnesses of the insurer, came to the conclusion that at the time of accident there were only two passengers sitting in the vehicle, one of whom being the deceased was a business man who had infact hired the vehicle to bring certain goods from Chandigarh. Also at the time of the accident, the vehicle was loaded with certain gunny bags belonging to the deceased. The Tribunal awarded a sum of `4,78,000/-as compensation along with interest @7½% from the date of institution of the petition till its realization. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties as also perused the record, I am of the considered view that findings by the Tribunal on issue No.5 are totally legal, borne out from the record and are based on complete and correct appreciation of the evidence led by the parties. The driver of the vehicle i.e. Sh. Tara Dutt Sharma (RW-2) stepped into the witness box and clearly deposed in favour of the claimant. His cross-examination by the insurer could not elicit anything to the contrary. More significantly, the witness of the insurer i.e. Tulsi Ram in no uncertain terms has deposed that he does not know whether there were goods in the vehicle at the time of accident or not. He has even denied in what capacity the deceased was actually sitting in the vehicle at that time. Consequently, I find no merit in the present appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed.