JUDGMENT : Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J. This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 29.3.2012, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-I, Solan District Solan, H.P. hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal”, for short, in MAC Petition No. 2-S/2 of 2009, titled Shrimati Ram Kali and another versus Shri Bala Ram and others, whereby compensation to the tune of Rs.2,66,000/- alongwith interest @ 7.5% per annum came to be awarded in favour of the claimants and insurer was saddled with the liability, for short “the impugned award”, on the grounds taken in the memo of appeal. 2. Claimant, Owner and driver have not questioned the impugned award on any ground, thus it has attained the finality, so far as it relates to them. 3. The positive case of the claimants before the Tribunal was that the deceased was travelling in the offending vehicle bearing registration No. HP-14-B-0567 Canter, after loading the goods. In paras 10 and 24 of the claim petition, the claimants have taken this specific plea, which has not been denied by the respondents-owner and driver. In reply to paras 10 and 24, owner and driver have admitted that the deceased was travelling in the offending vehicle as owner of the goods. The Tribunal has discussed in para 10 of the impugned award that the deceased was travelling in the offending vehicle as owner of the goods. Deceased being third party, the insurer has to satisfy the award. 4. The insurer has pleaded and taken the ground that the deceased was a gratuitous passenger, has not led any evidence. Thus the evidence led by the claimants has remained un-rebutted. Even the insurer has failed to discharge the onus. The factum of insurance as well as the validity of driving licence is not in dispute. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant-insurer argued that the son of the deceased was owner of the vehicle. It is immaterial for the reason that the deceased was third party and insurer has failed to lead any evidence to the effect that there was collusion between the owner and deceased or any willful breach was committed by the owner. Having said so, the Tribunal has rightly made the discussion. 6. Viewed thus, the Tribunal has rightly made the award, needs no interference. 7. Accordingly, the impugned award is upheld and the appeal is dismissed. 8. Having said so, the Tribunal has rightly made the discussion. 6. Viewed thus, the Tribunal has rightly made the award, needs no interference. 7. Accordingly, the impugned award is upheld and the appeal is dismissed. 8. The Registry is directed to release the amount in favour of the claimants, strictly in terms of the conditions contained in the impugned award, through payees’ cheque account, or by depositing the same in their bank accounts, after proper verification. 9. Send down the record forthwith, after placing a copy of this judgment.