JUDGMENT : Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J. 1. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment and award, dated 20.06.2009, made by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Shimla(for short "the Tribunal") in M.A.C.C. No. 51-S/2 of 2008/07, titled as Smt. Sumila Devi and another versus Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company and others, whereby compensation to the tune of Rs. 3,69,500/- 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 claimants and against the insurer (for short "the impugned award"). Brief facts: 2. The claimants have filed claim petition for grant of compensation to the tune of Rs. 4,51,500/-, as per the break-ups given in the claim petition. The claimants have averred in the claim petition that their sole bread earner, namely Shri Lokinder Singh, died in a road accident, while driving Maruti Car bearing registration No.HP-10-1329, on 30.03.2007, belonging to Shri Raja Ram, who too died in the said accident. 3. The claim petition was resisted by the respondents on the grounds taken in the respective memo of objections. 4. Following issues came to be framed by the Tribunal on 12.12.2007: "(i) Whether Sh. Lokinder Singh died in an accident involving the vehicle No.HP-10-1329 as alleged? OPP (ii) If issue No. 1 is proved in affirmative, whether the petitioners are entitled to the compensation as claimed. If so, its quantum and from whom? OP Parties. (iii) Whether the petition is not maintainable in the present form? OPR (iv) Whether the petitioners are estopped from filing the petition by their act and conduct? OPR (v) Whether the vehicle was being plied in violation of the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy. If so, its effect? OPR-1&2 (vi) Whether the driver was not holding and possessing a valid and effective driving licence to drive the offending vehicle as alleged. If so, its effect? OPR-1&2 (vii) Whether the deceased was a gratuitous passenger as alleged. If so, its effect? OPR-1&2 (viii) Relief." 7. The claimants have led evidence and one of the claimants, namely Smt. Sumila Devi, appeared in the witness box. The insurer has not led any evidence. However, Smt. Salochna, widow of the owner-insured appeared in the witness box. 8. OPR-1&2 (vii) Whether the deceased was a gratuitous passenger as alleged. If so, its effect? OPR-1&2 (viii) Relief." 7. The claimants have led evidence and one of the claimants, namely Smt. Sumila Devi, appeared in the witness box. The insurer has not led any evidence. However, Smt. Salochna, widow of the owner-insured appeared in the witness box. 8. The Tribunal, after scanning the evidence, oral as well as documentary, held that the claimants have proved all the issues and held the claimants entitled to compensation in terms of the impugned award. 9. The claimants and the legal representative of the owner-insured have not questioned the impugned award on any count, thus, has attained finality so far it relates to them. 9. Learned counsel for the appellants argued and contested the impugned award on following points: (i) That the claimants are the legal heirs/representatives of the owner-insured of the offending vehicle, thus, cannot maintain the claim petition; (ii) That the claimants have not proved that the deceased was employed as a driver with the offending vehicle; and (iii) That the deceased was traveling in the offending vehicle as a gratuitous passenger. 10. The arguments of the learned counsel for the appellants, though attractive, are devoid of any force for the following reasons: 11. It is admitted case that deceased-Shri Lokinder Singh was driving the offending vehicle at the relevant point of time, met with the accident, he and Raja Ram, owner of the offending vehicle, sustained injuries and succumbed to the injuries. No claim has been filed so far it relates to the death of Raja Ram. The claimants are the dependents of Lokinder Singh and are claiming compensation on the ground that he was driving the vehicle and met with the accident. Thus, the argument of the learned counsel for the appellants that the claim petition was not maintainable is not sustainable. 12. The claimants were not required to prove that Lokinder Singh was employed by Raja Ram as a driver with the offending vehicle. What they were required to prove, in terms of Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short "the MV Act") read with the Himachal Pradesh Motor Vehicles rules, 1999 (for short "the Rules"), is that Lokender Singh has lost his life in the traffic accident, which they have proved. 13. What they were required to prove, in terms of Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short "the MV Act") read with the Himachal Pradesh Motor Vehicles rules, 1999 (for short "the Rules"), is that Lokender Singh has lost his life in the traffic accident, which they have proved. 13. There is ample evidence on the file to hold that the deceased was not traveling in the offending vehicle as a gratuitous passenger, but was driving the same. 14. The offending vehicle was insured with the appellants at the relevant point of time and the insurance policy was subsisting. 15. Having said so, the impugned award merits to be maintained and the appeal is to be dismissed. Accordingly, the impugned award is upheld and the appeal is dismissed. 16. Registry is directed to release the awarded amount in favour of the claimants strictly as per the terms and conditions contained in the impugned award. 17. Send down the record after placing copy of the judgment on Tribunal's file.