JUDGMENT : R. Sudhakar, J. 1. Since all three appeals have arisen from one common accident, all the appeals are heard together and are disposed of by a common order. These are the appeals filed by the Insurance Company challenging that portion of the award, which declined its request/ prayer for settling the claims of compensation to the claimants with right to recover from the owner of the vehicle, since findings of the Tribunal is that deceased/injured are gratuitous passengers. 2. The controversy arose in these appeals is only regarding interpretation as to whether the word "fare was paid" for the injured/deceased on account of travelling as passenger or on payment of certain amount or whether they were travelling in the vehicle as owner of the fruits and vegetables after paying requisite fare to the lorry owner/driver. 3. It is not in dispute that the injured as well as deceased, skilled labourers besides selling fruits and vegetables, were travelling from Batote to Jammu along with fruits and vegetables in Truck No. JK02M-8971 and on 11.07.2007 suffered an accident in which one died and two got injured. 4. The findings of the Tribunal that there is valid insurance policy to cover the claimants is not disputed, the only plea of the Insurance Company is that the injured and the deceased were gratuitous passengers. Evidence was led by either side and finding of the Tribunal is that they have paid fare for the goods i.e. fruits and vegetables that were carried in the vehicle involved in the accident. 5. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company interprets that the fare paid was for travelling in the vehicle and not for the goods and in any event it cannot be because of gratuitous passengers. 6. The plea that these victims of the accidents are labourers, therefore, not owners of the goods has been interpreted by the Tribunal based on the evidence of the witnesses. No contra evidence was led according to the findings of the Tribunal on Issue No. 4, which reads thus:- "The onus of this issue was too on the respondent No. 3, Insurance Company who has failed to produce any evidence in this regard. Accordingly, issue No. is decided against the respondent-insurance and in favour of the petitioner." In this view of the matter, there is no reason to re-appreciate the facts and evidence. Findings no merits, these appeals are dismissed.