Judgment :- All the claim petitions arise out of one and the same accident, which took place on 03.04.1998 and all the claim petitions were disposed of by the Tribunal, by the common order, dated 29.10.2002, awarding compensation to the claimants. Against the said common order, the civil miscellaneous appeals have been filed. Therefore, they are heard together and disposed of by this common judgment. 2. The appellant-Insurance Company in all the C.M.As., is the second respondent in M.C.O.P.Nos.2550, 1801, 1800, 1798, 1799 and 1797 of 1999, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Principal District Judge), Tiruchirappalli. The petitioners/claimants in M.C.O.P.No.2550 of 1999 are the daughters of the deceased Bakkiyam. They claimed a sum of Rs.4,00,000/- as compensation for the death of their mother. The petitioner/claimant in M.C.O.P.Nos.1801, 1800, 1798, 1799 and 1797 of 1999, claimed compensation for the injuries sustained by them in the accident occurred on 04.04.2008. 3. Facts of the case: The claimant in M.C.O.P.Nos.1801, 1800, 1798, 1799 and 1797 of 1999 and the deceased Bakkiyam, engaged a Van belonging to one C.Jeevajothi, who is the first respondent in all the M.C.O.Ps., bearing Registration No.TN-49-D-0919, for the purpose of procuring Groceries from the Palukkurichi Market. On 04.04.1998, about 2.30 a.m., the driver of the van drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the lorry, bearing Registration No.TN-45-Z-2031, which was parked on the road side. Due to the said impact, the petitioner/claimant in M.C.O.P.Nos.1801, 1800, 1798, 1799 and 1797 of 1999, suffered multiple injuries and the mother of the petitioners in M.C.O.P.No.2550 of 1999, died in the accident. They have filed claim petitions before the Tribunal for the following amounts as compensation: Sl.No. C.M.A.No. M.C.O.P.Nos. Amount 1 3304 of 2003 2550 of 1999 4,00,000 2 3305 of 2003 1801 of 1999 2,00,000 3 3306 of 2003 1800 of 1999 2,00,000 4 317 of 2004 1798 of 1999 1,00,000 5 318 of 2004 1799 of 1999 2,00,000 6 319 of 2004 1797 of 1999 10,00,000 The owner of the vehicle remained ex parte before the Tribunal. 4. The appellant in the counter affidavit has stated that the accident did not take place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the van. The claimants failed to implead the owner of the lorry and it's Insurance Company. 4. The appellant in the counter affidavit has stated that the accident did not take place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the van. The claimants failed to implead the owner of the lorry and it's Insurance Company. Therefore, the claim petitions are liable to be dismissed for non-joinder of necessary parties. The first respondent in C.M.A.Nos.3305 and 3306 of 2003 and 317 to 319 of 2004 and the mother of the respondents 1 to 3 in C.M.A.No.3304 of 2003 travelled as gratuitous passengers in a goods van and therefore, the appellant is not liable to pay any compensation and prayed for dismissal of the claim petitions. 5. Before the Tribunal, on the behalf of the claimants, the first respondent in C.M.A.No.319 of 2004 was examined as P.W.1 and the first respondent in C.M.A.No.318 of 2004 was examined as P.W.2 and the first respondent in C.M.A.No.3306 of 2003 was examined as P.W.3 and the first respondent in C.M.A.No.3305 of 2003 was examined as P.W.4 and Dr.V.R.Ravi was examined as P.W.5 and the first respondent in C.M.A.No.317 of 2004 was examined as P.W.6 and the first respondent in C.M.A.No.3304 of 2003 was examined as P.W.7 and 22 documents were marked as Exs.A1 to A22. On behalf of the appellant Insurance Company, one Ialagarraj was examined as R.W.1 and the Insurance Policy was marked as Ex.B1. 6. The Tribunal considering the pleadings and evidence, came to the conclusion that the accident took place, only due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the van. The Tribunal also held that the first respondent in C.M.A.Nos.3305 and 3306 of 2003 and 317 to 319 of 2004 and the mother of the respondents 1 to 3 in C.M.A.No.3304 of 2003 did not travel as gratuitous passengers, but engaged a Van for procuring Groceries. Based on these conclusion, the Tribunal by common order, dated 29.10.2002, awarded the following amounts as compensation: Sl. No. C.M.A.No. M.C.O.P.No. Amount awarded by the Tribunal 1 3304 of 2003 2550 of 1999 80,000 2 3305 of 2003 1801 of 1999 60,000 3 3306 of 2003 1800 of 1999 65,225 4 317 of 2004 1798 of 1999 7,500 5 318 of 2004 1799 of 1999 62,070 6 319 of 2004 1797 of 1999 91,667 7. Against the said common order, dated 29.10.2002, these civil miscellaneous appeals have been filed. 8. Against the said common order, dated 29.10.2002, these civil miscellaneous appeals have been filed. 8. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the Tribunal is not correct in holding that the first respondent in C.M.A.Nos.3305 and 3306 of 2003 and 317 to 319 of 2004 and the mother of the respondents 1 to 3 in C.M.A.No.3304 of 2003 were travelled in the Van to purchase the goods, would also fall under the category of owner of goods. The said interpretation is contrary to law and the Policy issued by the appellant and therefore, the Tribunal should have dismissed the claims against the appellant. 9. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant. There is no representation on behalf of the respondents in all the appeals. 10. The point for consideration in all the appeals, is whether the first respondent and the deceased travelled as a gratuitous passenger or owner of goods. 11. The learned counsel for the appellant argued only on the question of liability. The learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contented that at the time of accident, there were no passengers in the van, and therefore, the first respondent in all the C.M.As. could not have been travelled as owner of goods. They can be termed only as gratuitous passengers in a goods carrier. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is untenable. 12. The respondents have proved that they engaged a van to go to Palukkurichi Market, for procuring Groceries. No contra evidence was let in by the appellant. Therefore, the contention of the Tribunal that the first respondent in C.M.A.Nos.3305 and 3306 of 2003 and 317 to 319 of 2004 and the mother of the respondents 1 to 3 in C.M.A.No.3304 of 2003 travelled in the van, as intending to purchase goods at Palukkurichi Market and the Insurance Policy Ex.B1 would cover the persons employed in connection with operation of goods, is acceptable. 13. In view of above, there is no reason to set aside the said finding. 14. In the result, the civil miscellaneous appeals are dismissed. No costs. Consequently, C.M.P.Nos.21169 to 21171 of 2003 and 1357 to 1359 of 2004 are closed.