JUDGMENT : - Mansoor Ahmad Mir, Chief Justice These five appeals lend themselves to disposal by this common judgment, having been filed by the owner-appellant, holding him liable to pay compensation, against the different set of judgments and awards, arising out of the same accident, awarding two different amounts of compensation, in favour of the claimants, for short the impugned awards. felt aggrieved and dissatisfied, by the impugned awards dated 28.2.2006 and 28.11.2006 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chamba, H.P. in the aforementioned five appeals, has thrown challenge to the same through the medium of the present appeals, on the ground of saddling him with the liability. Brief facts: 3. It does appear from the record that a vehicular accident had occurred on 19.12.2000, at about 10.45 A.M. at Chakoli bridge Tehsil Salooni, District Chamba wherein as many as 45 passengers, succumbed to the injuries, including the deceased in these appeals, due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver, who also died in the said accident, was an employee of the owner-appellant herein. The said accident was reported to the police and FIR No. 71 of 2000 dated 19.12.2000 came to be registered under Sections 279, 337 and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code. 4. The legal representatives of the deceased filed claim petitions before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal hereinafter referred to as the awards, as aforesaid. 5. The Insurer and owner resisted the claim petitions by filing separate replies. It was contended by the insurer that the claim petitions were not maintainable in the present form as the vehicle in question is a goods carrier and it cannot carry passengers for hire and rewards and the persons carried in the vehicle in question was in violation of the insurance policy hence insurer is not liable to pay compensation. It was further pleaded that deceased were gratuitous passengers. 6. The owner in his reply filed contended that the vehicle was insured with the insurer and respondent has also paid premium for L.L. (Legal liability) to non fare paying passengers. Therefore, the owner is not liable to pay compensation. 7. No rejoinder came to be filed. 8. At the very outset, I do whish to observe that in the present appeals, the findings returned by the Tribunal on all issues are not in dispute. Therefore, the owner is not liable to pay compensation. 7. No rejoinder came to be filed. 8. At the very outset, I do whish to observe that in the present appeals, the findings returned by the Tribunal on all issues are not in dispute. The only dispute is to the extent of saddling the owner with the liability. Thus, the findings returned on all other issues are upheld and there is no need to re-produce claim petitions was filed before the Tribunal below, some of them were determined in appeal by this Court on 21.4.2004, at an earlier point of time, lead case of which was FAO No. 378 of 2003, in which all the appeals were dismissed and the impugned awards made by the Tribunal were upheld. This Court, after examining the evidence of the parties in all the cases held that insurer is liable and accordingly fastened the insurer with the liability. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment passed by this Court, the insurance company questioned the same by maintaining Special Leave petition (SLP) which was also dismissed vide order dated 25.9.2013 passed in Civil Appeal No. (s) 4987 of 2006. However, the question raised in that appeal was kept open to be agitated in the appropriate cases. Thus, the findings returned in those appeals have attained finality, so far it relate to the appellants viz-a-viz the liability of the insurer arising out of the accident to pay the compensation, out of which these appeals have arisen. Once the apex Court has not interfered with the findings returned by this court meaning thereby judgment and order has 21.4.2004, supra is made part of the record. 10. The learned counsel for the insurance company pleaded that the insurer is not liable to pay the compensation. The insurer is caught by law of res judicata and cannot claim that the insurer cannot be saddled with the liability. 11. The claimants have specifically averred in the claim petitions that they were travelling in the said vehicle with their goods and were not gratuitous passengers and the risk of the owners of goods is covered, which fact is also admitted by the owner in para 10 of the reply filed by him and not denied by the insurer by filing any rejoinder. It is apt to reproduce para 10 of the reply filed by the owner hereunder: “10.That para No. 10 of the petition is admitted correct. The deceased was travelling in the vehicle with his goods.” 12. Admittedly, in terms of the mandate of Sections 146, 147 and 149, of the Motor Vehicles Act, the contract has been executed between the insurer and insured. The insurer has to indemnify the insured, as the insurer derives the liability in terms of the insurance contract. Thus the liability flows between the insurer and insured. It was obligatory on the part of the insurer to have filed rejoinder, response replica, as per the mandate of Section 169 of the Motor Vehicles Act read with the provisions contained in Order VI and VIII of the Code of Civil Procedure which has not been done by the insurer. Even otherwise, there is no evasive denial to the said stand taken by the owner-insured by the insurer thus, the stand taken by the owner-insured remained unrebutted rather, admitted in terms of Order VIII Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure, that they were travelling in the said vehicle as owners of the goods. 13. Having said so, the finding returned by the Tribunal that insurer is not liable is not tenable. 14. As a sequel to the above discussion and observations, the impugned awards, so far discharging the insurer and saddling the insured with the liability, is set aside and insurer is saddled with the liability. 15. The insurer is directed to deposit the compensation amount before the Registry of this Court within three months from today and on insured has in fact, deposited the amount in the Registry. On such deposit of the amount, the Registry is directed to release the amount in favour of the claimants strictly, in terms of the conditions contained in the impugned awards. 16. At this stage, the learned counsel for the appellant stated at the Bar and is also evident from order dated 29th June, 2006, passed by this Court, the amount stands already deposited before the Tribunal below by the insurer, as directed by the Tribunal. The Tribunal below is directed to release the compensation amount in favour of the claimants, strictly in terms of the conditions contained in the impugned awards, through payee’s account cheque. The Tribunal below is directed to release the compensation amount in favour of the claimants, strictly in terms of the conditions contained in the impugned awards, through payee’s account cheque. The statutory amount, if any, deposited by the insured-appellant be also released in favour of the claimants, as costs of the litigation. 17. Accordingly, the impugned awards are modified, as indicated above. The Registry to place the copy of this judgment on each of the files. 18. The appeals stand disposed of accordingly, alongwith pending applications, if any. 19. Send down the records forthwith.