JUDGMENT : Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J. All these appeals are outcome of a motor vehicular accident, which was allegedly caused by driver, namely, Rajinder Singh, while driving vehicle i.e. Mahindra Pick-Up bearing registration No.HP-09B-0306, rashly and negligently, on 11.1.2007, at about 9:30 p.m., near Mai Pool, Sainj, Balag Road, Tehsil Tehog, District Shimla. Thus, I deem it proper to club all these appeals and determine by this common judgment. 2. In FAO FAOs No. 116 & 123 of 200 2009, the insurer- Oriental Insurance Company Limited has questioned the awards passed in MAC Petition No. 21-S/2 of 2007, titled Smt. Devku Devi versus Sh. Mohinder Singh Chauhan & another and MAC Petition No. 22-S/2 of 2007, titled Krishna Devi & others versus Sh. Mohinder Singh Chauhan & another, respectively, hereinafter referred to as ‘the impugned awards’, on grounds taken in the memo of appeals. 3. By the medium of FAOs No. 147 & 148 of 200 2009, the claimants have questioned the aforesaid impugned awards, on the ground of adequacy of compensation. 4. The driver has not questioned the impugned awards, on any count. Thus, it has attained finality, so far those relate to him. 5. Claimants being victims of the motor vehicular accident filed two claim petitions, i.e. MAC Petition No. 21- S/2 of 2007 & MAC Petition No. 22-S/2 of 2007, separately, before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (II), Shimla, hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal”, for grant of compensation to the tune of Rs.15,00,000/- each, as per the break-ups given in the claim petition. 6. The respondents resisted the claim petitions on the grounds taken in their respective memo of objections. 7. The Tribunal, on the pleadings of the parties, framed common issues in both the petitions. It is apt to reproduce the issues framed in MAC Petition No. 21-S/2 of 2007:- “1. Whether the death of Sanjeev Kumar occurred due to rash and negligent driving of vehicle No.HP-09B-0306 by its driver Rajinder Singh Khachii?…OPP 2. If issue No. 1 is proved, what amount of compensation the petitioner is entitled to and from whom? ….OPP 3. Whether the petition is neither competent nor maintainable in the present form? …OPR 4. Whether the driver of the vehicle No.HP-09B-0306 was not having valid and effective driving licence?….OPR-2 5. Whether the deceased was traveling by vehicle No.HP-09B-306 as gratuitous passenger? ….OPR-2 6. Relief.” 8. ….OPP 3. Whether the petition is neither competent nor maintainable in the present form? …OPR 4. Whether the driver of the vehicle No.HP-09B-0306 was not having valid and effective driving licence?….OPR-2 5. Whether the deceased was traveling by vehicle No.HP-09B-306 as gratuitous passenger? ….OPR-2 6. Relief.” 8. The Tribunal, after examining the pleadings and scanning the evidence on record, awarded Rs. 2,65,000/- in Claim Petition NO. 21-S/2 of 2007, subject matter of FAOs No. 116 and 147 of 2009 and Rs. 6,97,000/-, subject matter of FAOs No. 123 & 148 of 2009, with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petitions in both the claim petitions and saddled the insurer with liability. 9. Learned Counsel for the insurer argued that the claimants have pleaded in their respective claim petitions that the deceased were traveling in the offending vehicle as owners of goods and they had hired the same. But, there is nothing on the file to prove the said fact, except the reply filed by the owner in response to para-24 of the claim petition. The reply cannot be relied upon for the reason that the claimants have made claim before the competent authority and had not stated that the deceased had hired the vehicle and were traveling in the offending vehicle as owners of the goods. He also averred that it is not mentioned in the claim petition what type of goods, the deceased were carrying in the offending vehicle. 10. The arguments advanced by the learned Counsel are devoid of any force for the following reasons. 11. The claimants in para-22 of Claim Petition No. 21-S/2 of 2007 have averred that the deceased had hired the offending vehicle for carrying ration, which is also admitted by the owner. It is apt to reproduce the relevant portion of para-22 of the reply filed by the owner herein:- “22. Para 22(i) of the petition is admitted. However, in reply to this para it is clarified and made clear that there were two persons besides driver traveling in the vehicle and the vehicle was hired by those two persons to carry ration who died on the spot…..” 12. In view of the reply filed by the insured, there was no dispute about the said fact. 13. However, in reply to this para it is clarified and made clear that there were two persons besides driver traveling in the vehicle and the vehicle was hired by those two persons to carry ration who died on the spot…..” 12. In view of the reply filed by the insured, there was no dispute about the said fact. 13. It was for the insurer to plead and prove that the deceased were traveling in the offending vehicle as a gratuitous passenger. 14. The respondents have not led any evidence that the deceased was traveling in the offending vehicle as a gratuitous passenger. Thus, it has failed to discharge the onus. 15. It was also for the insurer to plead and prove that the owner has committed willful breach. Neither such plea was raised nor evidence led. 16. Having said so, I am of the considered view that the Tribunal has rightly determined the said issue and saddled the insurer with the liability. 17. I have gone through the record. The Tribunal has made assessment and awarded just and appropriate compensation, cannot be said to be meager or excessive. 17. Viewed thus, it is held that there is no merit in the appeals. Accordingly, the same are dismissed and the impugned awards are upheld. 18. The Registry is directed to release the awarded amount in favour of the claimants, strictly in terms of the conditions contained in the impugned awards, through payees’ account cheque. 19. Send down the record after placing copy of the judgment on the Tribunal's files.