JUDGMENT Mansoor Ahmad Mir, Acting Chief Justice (Oral) The National Insurance Company Limited has filed this appeal against the award, dated 31st October, 2006, made by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Fast Track Court, Shimla, Himachal Pradesh (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal”) in Claim Petition No. 53­S/2 of 2005/2002, titled as Mst. Zarifa and others versus M/S Durga Gas Agency and others, whereby compensation to the tune of ` 7,27,500/­ with interest @ 6.5% from the date of the petition till payment came to be awarded in favour of the claimants and the insurer was saddled with liability (hereinafter referred to as “the impugned award”). Brief facts: 2.Deceased­Abdul Rashid Teeli became victim of an incident/accident, which, as per the averments contained in the claim petition, was outcome of use of a motor vehicle. It is specifically averred in para 4 of the claim petition that the deceased was employed by Durga Gas Agency as a labourer and was earning ` 7500/­ per month. On 5th January, 2001, at about 10.30 A.M., at the premises of Durga Gas Agency Godown, Sanjauli, Shimla, when the deceased was loading cylinders in the truck bearing registration No. HP­07­3708, a stack of the cylinders loaded in the said truck hit the deceased, who died on the spot. The cause of the death of the deceased was the sudden movement of the truck, which was rash and negligent act of the driver. 3.The claimants, being the victims of the vehicular accident, have filed a claim petition before the Tribunal for grant of compensation to the tune of ‘ ten lacs with 18% interest as per the break­ups given in the claim petition. 4.The insurer, insured­owner and driver contested the claim petition on the grounds taken in the memo of objections. After examining the pleadings and the documents, the Tribunal framed the following issues: “1. Whether respondent No. 2 was driving truck bearing No. HP­07­3708 on 05.01.02 near Durga Gas Agency Godown, Sanjauli at 10:30 AM resulting in death of Abdul Rashid Teeli, as alleged? OPP2.If issue No. 1 is proved whether petitioners are entitled for compensation, if so from whom? OPP 3.Whether this Tribunal has no jurisdiction to try the claim petition and claim petition is not legally maintainable? OPR 4.Whether the vehicle in question at the time of accident was being used in contravention of the provision ofMotor Vehicles Act, as alleged? OPP2.If issue No. 1 is proved whether petitioners are entitled for compensation, if so from whom? OPP 3.Whether this Tribunal has no jurisdiction to try the claim petition and claim petition is not legally maintainable? OPR 4.Whether the vehicle in question at the time of accident was being used in contravention of the provision ofMotor Vehicles Act, as alleged? OPR 5.Whether respondent No. 2 was not holding a valid and genuine driving licence at the time of accident, as alleged? OPR 6.Whether there has been any collusion between petitioner and respondent Nos. 1 and 2, as alleged? OPR 7.Relief.” 5.The owner­insured, the driver and the insurer have not denied the factum of accident, cause of death and even the specific averment/pleading of the claimant that the deceased was a labourer with M/s Durga Gas Agency. The owner and the driver have admitted para 4 of the claim petition. Even, the insurer has also admitted the said fact. Thus, there is no dispute viz­a­viz the cause of accident and occupation of the deceased. 6.The parties have led evidence. The Tribunal, after examining the record, passed the impugned award. 7.The claimants, the driver, the insured and even the insurer have not questioned the findings recorded by the Tribunal on all issues except the insurer has questioned the findings so far it relates to saddling of the insurer with liability. Thus, the findings recorded by the Tribunal have attained finality and the impugned award has attained finality as indicated hereinabove. 8.The insurer has questioned the impugned award, as recorded hereinabove, that the deceased was not in the employment of the insured Gas Agency, but was a coolie and has tried to rely on the evidence led by the insured­Gas Agency. 9.It is not known how the Tribunal allowed the insured and the insurer to lead evidence to the effect that the deceased was not employed with the insured because the parties are not at variance and there was no dispute about the said fact. Thus, the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant, that the deceased was not a labourer engaged by the insured­owner, is devoid of any force. Rather, the argument advanced is against the pleadings of the insurer, the insured and the driver. Thus, the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant, that the deceased was not a labourer engaged by the insured­owner, is devoid of any force. Rather, the argument advanced is against the pleadings of the insurer, the insured and the driver. 10.It is apt to record herein that even the insurer and the owner­insured have not led any evidence to show how the claim petition was not maintainable. 11.Having said so, I am of the considered view that there is ample evidence on the file, rather, admitted case of the parties that the deceased was an employee of the insured. 12.It pains to record herein that how the owner of the Gas Agency has led evidence against his own pleadings. Less is said is better. 13.In the given circumstances, the impugned award merits to be upheld and the appeal merits to be dismissed. 14.At this stage, Mr. G.S. Rathore, learned counsel for the claimants, stated at the Bar that one of the claimants­Rafiqua Akhtar has died during the pendency of the appeal. A perusal of the file reveals that her name has already been deleted from the array of respondents vide order, dated 2nd March, 2014. Thus, the awarded amount shall be distributed equally among the other claimants. The amount be released in favour of the claimants strictly as per the terms and conditions contained in the impugned award through payee’s cheque. 15.Viewed thus, the impugned award is upheld and the appeal is dismissed. 16.Send down the records after placing copy of the judgment on record.