JUDGMENT : Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J. This appeal is directed against the award, dated 28th December, 2010, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-I, Solan District Solan, H.P., (for short, “the Tribunal”) in Case No.27-S/2 of 2008, titled Mohinder Kumar alias Babu vs. Shri Ram Lal & others, whereby a sum of Rs.2,80,000/- alongwith interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum came to be awarded as compensation in favour of the claimant and the insurer was saddled with the liability (for short the “impugned award”). 2. The claimant, the owner-insured and the driver have not questioned the impugned award on any count. Thus, the same has attained finality so far it relates to them. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the deceased was not travelling in the offending vehicle as owner of the goods. The case is a concocted story, is an afterthought and is in conflict with the averments contained in FIR No.17, dated 22.2.2007, lodged at Police Station Kasauli. The argument, though attractive, is devoid of any force for the following reason. 4. Claimant has specifically pleaded in the claim petition that he was travelling in the offending vehicle as owner of the goods and had hired the vehicle. The said fact stands admitted by the owner and the driver. Thus, there was no need to lead evidence and prove the said fact. However, they have led the evidence and the witnesses have deposed that the claimant was travelling in the offending vehicle as owner of the goods. One of the witnesses, namely, ASI Dharam Pal (RW-5), has stated that he has conducted the investigation, came to the conclusion that the claimant has hired the offending vehicle and was travelling in the said vehicle as owner of the goods. The Tribunal has rightly made discussion in paras 12 and 13 of the impugned award, needs no interference. 5. Having said so, it can safely be held that the Tribunal has rightly made discussion and came to the conclusion that the claimant has hired the offending vehicle and was travelling in the same as owner of the goods. Thus, the owner has not committed any willful breach. 6. Accordingly, the impugned award is upheld and the appeal is dismissed. 7. Thus, the owner has not committed any willful breach. 6. Accordingly, the impugned award is upheld and the appeal is dismissed. 7. The Registry is directed to release the award amount in favour of the claimant, strictly as per the terms and conditions contained in the impugned award through payees’ account cheque or by depositing the same in his bank account. 8. Send down the record after placing copy of the judgment on the Tribunal’s file.