JUDGMENT : Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J. Challenge in this appeal is to the award, dated 1st May, 2007, made by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Solan, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal") in MAC Petition No. 168-S/2 of 2005, titled as Shri Rajinder Kumar versus Ramesh Chand Khurana and another, whereby compensation to the tune of 4,19,000/- with interest 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till deposit of the amount came to be awarded in favour of the claimant-injured (hereinafter referred to as "the impugned award"). 2. The insurer and the claimant-injured have not questioned the impugned award on any count, thus, has attained finality so far it relates to them. 3. The owner-insured-appellant has questioned the impugned award only on the ground that the Tribunal has fallen in error in fastening the liability upon him, on the grounds taken in the memo of appeal. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the offending vehicle was insured at the relevant point of time and risk of the claimant-injured, namely Shri Rajinder Kumar, who was travelling in the truck, bearing registration No. HP-11-0442, as a conductor/ cleaner, was covered and he has not committed any breach. 5. Learned counsel for the insurer argued that the claimant-injured was not travelling in the vehicle as a conductor/cleaner or the owner of the goods and the Tribunal has rightly exonerated the insurer and directed the owner-insured to satisfy the award. 6. In order to determine the issue involved, the brief facts of the case are to be noticed. Brief facts: 7. The claimant-injured, Shri Rajinder Kumar, has averred in the claim petition that he was travelling in the truck, bearing registration No. HP- 11-0442, on 4th May, 1996, which met with an accident near Village Manjyat, Tehsil Arki at about 3.35 p.m. FIR No. 23 of 1996 was registered at Police Station Arki under Sections 279, 337 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as "the IPC"). He has pleaded that he was 29 years of age at the time of accident and was agriculturist by occupation. In para 10 of the claim petition, it has been averred that he was travelling in the said vehicle as owner of goods and he was also entrusted the job of conductor on the said date because the regular conductor was not available. 8. In para 10 of the claim petition, it has been averred that he was travelling in the said vehicle as owner of goods and he was also entrusted the job of conductor on the said date because the regular conductor was not available. 8. The driver of the offending vehicle also lost life in the said accident. 9. The owner-insured has filed reply and in reply to para 10 of the claim petition, stated that the offending vehicle was being managed and controlled by him and his brother. The vehicle was being plied day and night for carrying goods of Ambuja Cement Limited from one place to another. Further that Shri Rajinder Kumar and Shri Babu Ram were engaged as conductors by his brother and the claimant was travelling in the offending vehicle as a conductor at the relevant point of time. In reply to para 21 of the claim petition, it has been averred that the claim petition is not maintainable against him and has denied his liability to pay compensation. 10. The insurer has filed reply and contested the claim petition on the ground that the claimant was not engaged as a conductor and he was also not travelling in the said vehicle as owner of the goods, but as a gratuitous passenger. 11. Following issues came to be framed by the Tribunal: "1. Whether the petitioner has suffered injuries on account of rash/negligent driving of the truck driver in which he was one of the occupants?...OPP 2. If issue No. 1 is proved in affirmative, what amount of compensation the petitioner is entitled to and from whom?...OPP 3. Whether the petitioner was travelling as gratuitous passenger in the vehicle? ...OPR-2 4. Whether the truck was not validly registered at the time of accident?...OPR-2 5. Whether the driver was not holding driving licence to drive the offending vehicle at the time of accident? ...OPR-2 6. Relief." 12. The claimant has examined MHC Ramesh Chand as PW-2, Shri Amar Singh as PW-3, Dr. Anil Bansal as PW-4 and has also appeared himself in the witness box as PW-1. He has also placed on record affidavit as Ext. PW-1/A; discharge slips as Ext. PW-1/B, Ext. PW-1/C & Ext. PW-1/D, copy of jamabandi as Ext. PW-1/E, copy of order of the High Court as Ext. PW-1/F, disability certificate as Mark A and prescription slips as Mark B to Mark F. 13. He has also placed on record affidavit as Ext. PW-1/A; discharge slips as Ext. PW-1/B, Ext. PW-1/C & Ext. PW-1/D, copy of jamabandi as Ext. PW-1/E, copy of order of the High Court as Ext. PW-1/F, disability certificate as Mark A and prescription slips as Mark B to Mark F. 13. The owner-insured has himself appeared in the witness box as RW-2 and has placed on record affidavit as Ext. RW-2/A, copy of certificate of validity of driving licence as RW-2/B, copy of insurance policy as Ext. RW-2/C, copy of registration & fitness certificates as Mark R-1 and copy of insurance cover note as Ext. RW-2/D. The insurer has examined Shri Ram Lal, Junior Assistant from the office of SDM Arki as RW-1. Issue No. 1: 14. The Tribunal, after scanning the evidence, oral as well as documentary, held that the driver of the offending truck had driven the vehicle rashly and negligently, caused the accident and the claimant sustained injuries. The owner-insured has also admitted the factum of accident. Accordingly, the findings returned by the Tribunal on issue No. 1 are upheld. 15. Before I deal with issues No. 2 and 3, I deem it proper to determine issues No. 4 and 5. Issues No. 4 and 5: 16. It was for the insurer to prove that the offending vehicle was not registered and the driver was not holding valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident. Neither it has led any evidence nor there is anything on record to prove the said issues. The Tribunal, after examining the record, has rightly held that the offending vehicle was validly registered at the relevant point of time in terms of the Registration and Fitness Certificates, Mark R-1, and the driver was having the valid and effective driving licence in terms of Ext. RW-2/B. Accordingly, the findings returned on issues No. 4 and 5 are upheld. Issue No. 3: 17. The insurer has placed on record copy of the application filed by the claimant-injured before the Commissioner under Workmen's Compensation Act, Arki, District Solan, copy of judgment of this Court in FAO No. 111 of 2001, titled as Rajinder Kumar versus Oriental Insurance Co. & anr. Issue No. 3: 17. The insurer has placed on record copy of the application filed by the claimant-injured before the Commissioner under Workmen's Compensation Act, Arki, District Solan, copy of judgment of this Court in FAO No. 111 of 2001, titled as Rajinder Kumar versus Oriental Insurance Co. & anr. It appears that the claimant has first invoked the jurisdiction of the Authority under Workmen's Compensation Act and sought compensation on the ground that he was workman, which was turned down by the Commissioner under Workmen's Compensation Act at Arki vide order, dated 31st March, 2001. 18. Feeling aggrieved, the claimant filed FAO No. 111 of 2001, which was also disposed of by providing liberty to the claimant to approach the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal concerned. The findings returned by the Commissioner under Workmen's Compensation Act have attained finality, thus, how can the claimant now plead and press into service that he was a workman i.e. cleaner/conductor. The claimant had not taken the plea before the Commissioner under Workmen's Compensation Act that he was travelling in the offending vehicle as owner of the goods, is an afterthought, just to seek compensation. 19. It is also worthwhile to mention herein that in para 4 of the claim petition, the claimant has stated that he is an agriculturist by occupation. The Tribunal, after discussing the evidence, held that no goods were found near the place of accident or in the offending vehicle. The description as to which kind of goods/articles he was carrying in the offending vehicle has not been given, not to speak of proof. 20. The Tribunal has rightly held that the claimant was not travelling in the vehicle as conductor/cleaner or owner of the goods. The record do disclose that he was travelling in the offending vehicle as a gratuitous passenger. The insurer has been able to prove and establish that the claimant was travelling in the offending vehicle as a gratuitous passenger. 21. Having said so, findings returned by the Tribunal on issue No. 3 are upheld. Issue No. 2: 22. The quantum of compensation is not in dispute. Accordingly, the amount of compensation awarded is upheld. The risk of gratuitous passenger is not covered in terms of the insurance policy, Ext. RW-2/C, read with the mandate of Section 149 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as "the MV Act"). Issue No. 2: 22. The quantum of compensation is not in dispute. Accordingly, the amount of compensation awarded is upheld. The risk of gratuitous passenger is not covered in terms of the insurance policy, Ext. RW-2/C, read with the mandate of Section 149 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as "the MV Act"). The Tribunal has rightly discharged the insurer and saddled the owner-insured with liability. Thus, the findings returned by the Tribunal on issue No. 2 are upheld. 23. Having glance of the above discussions, no case for interference is made out and the appeal merits to be dismissed. Accordingly, the impugned award is upheld and the appeal is dismissed. 24. The owner-insured is directed to deposit the awarded amount before the Registry within twelve weeks, if not already deposited. On deposition of the same, the Registry is directed to release the awarded amount in favour of the claimant after proper identification. 25. Send down the record after placing copy of the judgment on Tribunal's file.