JUDGMENT : Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J. 1. Challenge in this appeal is to award, dated 31st December, 2011, made by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kinnaur Civil Division at Rampur Bushahr, H.P. (for short ?the Tribunal?) in MAC Petition No. 66 of 2009, titled as Smt. Pushpa Devi and others versus Smt. Kanta Devi and another, whereby compensation to the tune of ? 11,12,320/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date 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?). 2. The claimants, owner-insured and driver of the offending vehicle have not questioned the impugned award on any count, thus, has attained finality so far it relates to them. 3. The insurer has questioned the impugned award on the ground that the Tribunal has fallen in an error in saddling it with liability. 4. I have gone through the record. The insurance policy is on the file as Ext. RB, the perusal of which does disclose that the seating capacity of the offending vehicle was 4', thus, the risk of the deceased was covered. 5. Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the insurer argued that the deceased was travelling in the offending vehicle as a gratuitous passenger and no such issue was framed by the Tribunal. The argument is not tenable for the following reasons: 6. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues came to be framed by the Tribunal on 13th December, 2010: ?1) Whether late Sh. Mehar Singh died on account of the injuries sustained by him due to the rash and negligent driving of vehicle No. HP-06-3157 being driven by its owner Sh. Shamsher Singh owner-cum-driver (since deceased), as alleged? OPP 2) If issue No. 1 is proved, to what amount of compensation the petitioners are entitled to and from whom? OPP 3) Whether the driver (Shamsher Singh, since deceased) of the offending vehicle was not possessed of valid and effective driving license at the relevant time? OPR-2 4) Whether the offending vehicle was being plied in breach of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy? OPR-2 5) Whether the offending vehicle at the relevant time was being plied without valid documents, as alleged? OPR-2 6) Relief.? 7. OPR-2 4) Whether the offending vehicle was being plied in breach of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy? OPR-2 5) Whether the offending vehicle at the relevant time was being plied without valid documents, as alleged? OPR-2 6) Relief.? 7. It was for the insurer to plead and prove that the deceased was travelling in the offending vehicle as a gratuitous passenger. Issue No. 2 to the extent of 'from whom' and issue No. 4 relate to the said plea. The insurer has not led any evidence to prove the said factum, thus, has failed to discharge the onus. 8. Having said so, the ground urged by the insurer is not tenable. 9. The amount awarded by the Tribunal is adequate, cannot be said to be meagre or excessive in any way. 10. Viewed thus, the Tribunal has rightly made the impugned award, needs no interference. 11. Having glance of the above discussion, the impugned award is upheld and the appeal is dismissed. 12. Registry to release the awarded amount in favour of the claimants strictly as per the terms and conditions contained in the impugned award through payee's account cheque or by depositing the same in their respective bank accounts. 13. Send down the record after placing copy of the judgment on Tribunal's file.