JUDGMENT Mansoor Ahmad Mir, Acting Chief Justice (Oral) The subject matter of these appeals are the awards and orders, dated 10th March, 2008, made by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal­II, Sirmaur District at Nahan, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal”) in MAC Petitions No. 45­N/2 of 2003 and 43­N/2 of 2003, titled as Smt. Parwati & others versus Hari Ram & another, whereby compensation to the tune of ` 11,07,480/­ and ` 2,98,000/­alongwith interest @ 7.5% per annum was granted in favour of the claimants in the said petitions, respectively, from the date of the petition till its realization (hereinafter referred to as “the impugned award”). The said claim petitions are outcome of a traffic accident, thus, this order will govern both appeals. Brief facts: 2. The motor­vehicular traffic accident, which was allegedly caused by driver, namely Surender Kumar, who was not party to lis, while driving the offending vehicle, truck bearing registration No. HP­16­1176, rashly and negligently, near Lani turn at Village Andheri, on 8th July, 2002, at about 10.45 A.M., hit Rajinder Singh and Smt. Kaunla Devi, who sustained injuries and succumbed to the injuries. 3. The claimants/dependents/legal representatives filed two claim petitions, titled as Smt. Parwati Devi & others versus Hari Ram & another, for grant of compensation as per the break­ups given in the said claim petitions. 4. A third person, namely Nishant Surya, had also sustained injuries in the same accident and has filed a claim petition for grant of compensation on the ground that he was a conductor with the offending vehicle, i.e. the said truck, came to be granted by the Tribunal, was subject matter of FAO No. 227 of 2006 and came to be dismissed today by a separate order. 5. The owner­insured and the insurer­Insurance Company contested the claim petitions. The following issues came to be framed by the Tribunal in MAC Petition No. 45­N/2 of 2003: “1. Whether the deceased Rajinder Singh died in a motor accident caused by the rash and negligent driving of the truck No. HP­16­1176 by its driver, near Lani Turn at VillageAndheri, on 8.7.2002 at about10.45A.M.? ...OPP2.If issue No. 1 is proved, what amount of compensation, petitioners are entitled for and from whom? ...OPP3.Whether the deceased was travelling in the truck as a gratuitous passenger as such the insurance company is not liable to pay the compensation? ... ...OPP2.If issue No. 1 is proved, what amount of compensation, petitioners are entitled for and from whom? ...OPP3.Whether the deceased was travelling in the truck as a gratuitous passenger as such the insurance company is not liable to pay the compensation? ... OPR­2­ 4.Whether the driver was having a valid and effective licence at the time of accident? If so, its effect? .. OPR­2 5.Whether there is a collusion between the petitioners and respondent No. 1. If so, its effect? ... OPR­2 6. Relief.” 6. In MAC Petition No. 43­N/2 of 2003, following issues came to be framed by the Tribunal: “1. Whether the deceased Kaunla Devi died in a motor accident caused by the rash and negligent driving of the truck No. HP­16­1176 by its driver, near Lani Turn at VillageAndheri, on 8.7.2002 at about10.45A.M.? ...OPP 2.If issue No. 1 is proved, what amount of compensation, petitioners are entitled for and from whom?...OPP3. Whether the deceased was travelling in the truck as a gratuitous passenger and as such the insurance company is not liable to pay the compensation? ... OPR­2 4.Whether the driver was having a valid and effective licence at the time of accident? If so, its effect? .. OPR­2 5. Whether there is a collusion between the petitioners and respondent No. 1. If so, its effect? ... OPR­2 6. Relief.” 7. The claimants examined witnesses in support of their claims. The Tribunal, after examining the entire record, awarded compensation to the tune of ‘ 11,07,480/­ and ‘ 2,98,000/­, respectively alongwith interest @ 7.5% per annum in favour of the claimants from the date of the petition till its realization vide impugned awards. 8. The only dispute raised in these appeals is that the Insurance Company­appellant is not liable to pay the compensation on the ground that the deceased­mother and son were the gratuitous passengers, is a willful breach committed by the insured­ owner. 9. The other questions/issues are not in dispute. Thus, I deem it proper not to discuss other aspects of the case, i.e. the findings recorded by the Tribunal viz­a­viz issues No. 1,4 and 5. It is also apt to record herein that neither the owner­insured nor the claimants have questioned the impugned awards on any ground. Thus, the findings returned on issues No. 1,4 and 5 are upheld. Thus, I deem it proper not to discuss other aspects of the case, i.e. the findings recorded by the Tribunal viz­a­viz issues No. 1,4 and 5. It is also apt to record herein that neither the owner­insured nor the claimants have questioned the impugned awards on any ground. Thus, the findings returned on issues No. 1,4 and 5 are upheld. Issues No.2 and 3: 10.The basic issue, which is pressed into service, is issue No. 3, but it has also bearing on issue No. 2 for a simple reason that while deciding issue No. 2, the finding is to be recorded that who is to be saddled with the liability. Thus, I deem it proper to decide both the issues together. 11.According to the insured­appellant(s), the deceased were gratuitous passengers. Thus, liability is not covered by the insurance policy. But the case set up by the claimants is that they were walking on the right side of the road and were hit by the truck/ offending vehicle, which was being driven by the driver (who is not a party) rashly and negligently. 12.The claimants have examined the star witness, Chatter Singh (PW­4), who is said to be the eye witness, has deposed that the offending vehicle hit deceased while they were walking on the road side, were dragged and the truck fell down. Both of them died on the spot. 13.The insurer­appellant(s) has laid stress on the statement of RW­ 1, namely Shiv Ram, but the Tribunal has not relied his statement for the reason that the only eye witness qua the scene of occurrence was available, his statement is truthful one. Even in the cross­examination the insurer and the insured have not been able to shatter his testimony. 14.The claim petitions filed for grant of compensation in terms of provisions of Sections 165 to 176 contained in Chapter XII of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter referred to as “the MV Act”) are to be decided summarily, the strict proof is not required. Rather, it is a non­adversarial litigation. Thus, the strict pleadings and proof are not required while keeping in view the aim, object and purpose of grant of compensation read with the provisions contained in Sections 165 to 176 of the MVAct. 15.The procedural wrangles, tangles and mystic maybe’s have no role to play. Rather, it is a non­adversarial litigation. Thus, the strict pleadings and proof are not required while keeping in view the aim, object and purpose of grant of compensation read with the provisions contained in Sections 165 to 176 of the MVAct. 15.The procedural wrangles, tangles and mystic maybe’s have no role to play. The claim petitions are to be decided summarily in order to achieve the aim and object. The Apex Court in a case titled Dulcina Fernandes and others vs. Joaquim Xavier Cruz and another, reported in (2013) 10 Supreme Court Cases 646 has laid down the same principle and held that strict proof and strict links are not required. 16.Applying test to the present case, I am of the considered view that the Tribunal has rightly made the impugned award. 17.Viewed thus, both these appeals merit to be dismissed and the impugned awards merit to be upheld. Ordered accordingly. Copy of this order be placed in each file.