JUDGMENT : Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J. There is no representation on behalf of respondent No. 8. Hence, he is set ex-parte. 2. The subject matter of this appeal is the award dated 20th September, 2008, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-II, Shimla, District Shimla (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal”) in M.A.C. Petition No. 14-R/2 of 2007, whereby compensation to the tune of Rs.4,93,000/- with interest at the rate of 8% per annum, from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realization, was awarded in favour of the claimants*respondents No. 1 to 7, herein and the insurer-appellant, herein was saddled with liability (for short, the “impugned award”). Brief Facts Facts: 3. The claimants, being victims of a motor vehicular accident, had invoked jurisdiction of the Tribunal, in terms of the mandate of Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for short “the Act”, for grant of compensation to the tune of Rs.15,00,000/-, as per the break-ups given in the claim petition, on the ground that driver-cum-owner namely, Sunder Singh Chauhan, had driven the offending vehicle i.e. Maruti Car bearing registration No. HP-10A-2652, rashly and negligently, on 22.04.2006, at Jatli (Bhatwari), Tehsil Chirgaon, District Shimla, caused the accident, as a result of which, Shri Surat Singh, sustained injuries and succumbed to them. 4. The claim petition was resisted and contested by the respondents on the grounds taken in the memo of objections. 5. Following issues came to be framed by the Tribunal: “1. Whether the death of Surat Singh took place on 22.04.2006 due to rash and negligent driving of vehicle No HP-10-A-2652 by respondent No.2.? …OPP 2. If issue No. 1 is proved, what amount petitioners are entitled to by way of compensation and from whom? …OPP 3. Whether the deceased was a gratuitous passenger? ….OPR-1 4. Whether occupants/passenger’s risk is not covered by insurance policy obtained by the owner of the vehicle? …OPR-2. 5. Whether the vehicle was being driven in violation of conditions of policy? …OPR-1 6. Whether the respondent No. 2 was not holding a valid and effective driving licence?….OPR-1 7. Relief.” 6. …OPP 3. Whether the deceased was a gratuitous passenger? ….OPR-1 4. Whether occupants/passenger’s risk is not covered by insurance policy obtained by the owner of the vehicle? …OPR-2. 5. Whether the vehicle was being driven in violation of conditions of policy? …OPR-1 6. Whether the respondent No. 2 was not holding a valid and effective driving licence?….OPR-1 7. Relief.” 6. The Tribunal, after examining the pleadings and scanning the evidence on record, held that claimants are entitled to compensation to the tune of Rs.4,93,00/- alongwith interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of decision of the petition till its realization and saddled the insurer with the liability. 7. The claimants, the owner-cum-driver have not questioned the impugned award, on any count. Thus, it has attained finality, so far as it relates to them. 8. Only the insurer has questioned the impugned award on the ground that the Tribunal has fallen in an error in saddling it with the liability. 9. The claimants have specifically averred in para-24 of the claim petition that the deceased was traveling in the offending vehicle on paying fare. It is apt to reproduce para-24 of the claim petition herein:- “That on 22-4-2007 the deceased was traveling from Rohru to Mastot in the said car after paying fair to the driver cum owner of car. The vehicle was driven by driver in a very rash and negligent manners and at place Jatli (Bhatwari), Tehsil Chirgaon, Distt. Shimla, H.P., the vehicle meets with an accident, which was being driven by respondent No. 2 who is driver cum owner of the car. The deceased suffer multiple injuries on his hed and died. Hence the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation to the petitioners.” 10. It is the pleading of the claimants that the deceased was traveling in the offending vehicle on paying fare. The offending vehicle is a private vehicle and cannot be used as a passenger’s vehicle, thus the owner has committed breach. 11. The claimants are the third party and it is the duty of the insurer to satisfy the award. 12. Having said so, the insurer is held liable to satisfy the impugned award with right of recovery and is at liberty to move an application for recovery before the Tribunal. 13. Accordingly, the impugned award is modified, as indicated hereinabove and the appeal is disposed of. 12. Having said so, the insurer is held liable to satisfy the impugned award with right of recovery and is at liberty to move an application for recovery before the Tribunal. 13. Accordingly, the impugned award is modified, as indicated hereinabove and the appeal is disposed of. 14. Send down the records after placing a copy of the judgment on the Tribunal's file.