Judgment Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J. In terms of the note of the Registry, notices in respect of respondents No. 4 and 5 have been published in 'Dainik Tribune'. Today, there is no representation on their behalf. Hence, respondents No. 4 and 5 are set exparte. 2. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment and award, dated 15.03.2008, made by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Solan, Camp at Nalagarh (for short "the Tribunal") in MAC Petition No. 2NL/2 of 2006, titled as Shri Rakesh Kumar Gautam versus Sandeep Garg and others, whereby compensation to the tune of Rs. 2,14,750/- with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realization came to be awarded in favour of the claimant-injured and the insurer was saddled with liability (for short "the impugned award"). 2. The claimant-injured, the owner-insured and the driver of the offending vehicle have not questioned the impugned award on any count, thus, has attained finality so far it relates to them. 3. The appellant-insurer has questioned the impugned award on the grounds taken in the memo of appeal. 4. The only question to be determined in this appeal is whether the insurer came to be rightly saddled with liability or otherwise? 5. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the vehicle involved in the accident was a private vehicle and the claimant-injured was a friend of the owner-insured, thus, his risk was not covered. 6. I have gone through the record. 7. The insurance policy, Ext. R1 and details of policy are given at page 126 of the paper book. While going through Ext. R1, one comes to an inescapable conclusion that the offending vehicle was a Maruti Car and the seating capacity is 4'. In terms of the details given at page 124 of the paper book, the risk of owner-cum-driver and one employee is covered. It also gives the details of the persons entitled to drive and limits of liability in terms of Sections II(i) and II(ii) of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. 8. While going through the terms and conditions of the insurance policy and the record, it can be safely held that the claimant-injured was not travelling in the offending vehicle at the time of the accident as a gratuitous passenger. 8. While going through the terms and conditions of the insurance policy and the record, it can be safely held that the claimant-injured was not travelling in the offending vehicle at the time of the accident as a gratuitous passenger. He was just a friend of the owner of the offending vehicle, as pleaded and proved before the Tribunal and his risk was covered in terms of Annexure R1 as an additional amount of Rs. 500/- has been paid by the owner-insured towards the risk of third party. 9. Having said so, the Tribunal has rightly made the discussion in the impugned award, needs no interference. 10. Accordingly, the impugned award is upheld and the appeal is dismissed. 11. Registry is directed to release the awarded amount in favour of the claimant-injured strictly as per the terms and conditions contained in the impugned award after proper identification. 12. Send down the record after placing copy of the judgment on Tribunal's file.