JUDGMENT Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J. (Oral) Challenge in FAO No.217 of 2007 is to the award, dated 27.2.2007, passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (II), Shimla, (for short, the Tribunal), in MAC Petition No.79-S/2 of 1999, titled Krishna Devi and another versus Kamlesh Kumar Sharma and another, whereby compensation to the tune of Rs.3,31,800/-, with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of the Claim Petition till realization, came to be awarded in favour of the claimants (respondents No.1 and 2 herein) and against the insured/owner and the insurer, (for short, impugned award-I). 2. FAO No.282 of 2007 has been preferred by the insurer-appellant against the award, dated 26.3.2007, passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal(II), Shimla, (for short, the Tribunal), in MAC Petition No.11-S/2 of 2002, titled Kanta Devi and another vs. Kamlesh Kumar Sharma and another, whereby a sum of Rs.2,32,800/-, with 7.5% interest from the date of the Claim Petition till realization, stands awarded in favour of the claimants and against the insurer and the insured/owner, (for short, impugned award-II). 3. Both the awards, impugned in these appeals, were passed in two claim petitions arising out of one accident, therefore, I deem it proper to determine both the appeals by this common judgment. Brief Facts: FAO No.217 of 2007: 4. It is averred in the Claim Petition that on 31st December, 1998, near Kuhni Bridge on Kunihar-Arki road, the deceased Mohinder Lal was on the extreme left side of the road and the oil tanker bearing No.PH-11J-4657, which was being driven rashly and negligently by its driver, hit Mohinder Lal, as a result of which he rolled down the road and died on the spot. Thus, the claimants, being dependants upon the deceased, claimed compensation to the tune of Rs.7.00 lacs, as per the break-ups given in the claim petition. FAO No.282 of 2007: 5. It is averred in the Claim Petition that on the aforesaid date, time and place, the deceased Vishwa Nath alias Sanju was traveling in the oil tanker bearing No.PH-11-4657 and because of the rash and negligent driving of its driver, the said oil tanker met with an accident, resulting into the death of said Vishwa Nath. Thus, the claimants being parents of the deceased, preferred claim petition claiming compensation to the tune of Rs.8.00 lacs, as per the break-ups given in the Claim Petition. 6. Thus, the claimants being parents of the deceased, preferred claim petition claiming compensation to the tune of Rs.8.00 lacs, as per the break-ups given in the Claim Petition. 6. The owner-insured and the insurer resisted the Claim Petitions by filing replies. 7. Following issues were framed by the Tribunal in Claim Petition No.79-S/2 of 1999 (subject matter of FAO No.217 of 2007): “1. Whether on 31.12.1998 at about 7PM at Bani, the driver of Tanker No.PB-11J4657 was driving the tanker rashly and negligently and as such caused the death of Sh.Mohinder Lal deceased? OPP 2. If issue No.1 is proved in affirmative, to what amount of compensation the petitioners are entitled and from whom? OPP 3. Whether the driver of Tanker bearing No.PB-11J4657 was not holding a valid and effective driving licence at the time of the accident? OPR 4. Whether there is collusion between the petitioner and respondent? OPR 5. Whether the petition is bad for better particulars? OPR 6. Relief.” 8. In Claim Petition No.11-S/2 of 2002 (subject matter of FAO No.282 of 2007), the following issues were settled by the Tribunal : “1. Whether on 31.12.1998 at about 7P.M. near Kuhni Bridge the driver was driving tanker No. PB-11-4657 rashly and negligently and as such caused death of Sh.Vishwa Nath? OPP 2. If issue No.1 is proved in affirmative, to what amount of compensation the petitioners are entitled and from whom? OPP 3. Whether the driver was not holding valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident? OPR 4. Whether the Tanker No.PB-11-4657 was being driven without fitness certificate and registration certificate? OPP 5. Whether there is collusion between the petitioner and respondent No.1? OPR 6. Whether Sh.Vishwa Nath was traveling in Oil Tanker No.PB-11-4657 as a gratuitous passenger? OPR-2. 7. Relief.” 9. In order to prove their respective claims, evidence was led by the claimants, in both the Claim Petitions, while the insured and the insurer have opted not to lead any evidence, except placing the insurance policy on record. 10. The Tribunal, after scanning the evidence, held that the Claimants, in both the Claim Petitions, have proved that the driver had driven the offending vehicle rashly and negligently on 31st December, 1998, near Kuhni Bridge and had caused the accident in which Mohinder Lal and Vishwa Nath sustained injuries and lateron succumbed to them. 10. The Tribunal, after scanning the evidence, held that the Claimants, in both the Claim Petitions, have proved that the driver had driven the offending vehicle rashly and negligently on 31st December, 1998, near Kuhni Bridge and had caused the accident in which Mohinder Lal and Vishwa Nath sustained injuries and lateron succumbed to them. The Tribunal also held that both the deceased were traveling in the offending vehicle as gratuitous passengers and directed the insurer-appellant to satisfy the impugned awards, with right of recovery from the owner, namely, Kamlesh Kumar Sharma. Neither the owner of the offending vehicle i.e. Kamlesh Kumar Sharma nor the Claimants have questioned the impugned awards on any count, thus attained finality so far as the impugned awards relate to them. 11. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the appellant-insurer argued that the Tribunal has fallen in error in asking the insurer to satisfy the impugned awards, at the first instance, and then recover the same from the owner/insured, which is devoid of any force. Admittedly, the claimants are third parties and the Tribunal has rightly directed the insurer to satisfy the impugned awards, with a right of recovery. 12. Having said so, both the appeals fail, the same are dismissed and the impugned awards are upheld.