JUDGMENT : Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J. Subject matter of this appeal is the award, dated 1st October, 2010, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chamba, H.P., (for short, the Tribunal), in Claim Petition No.47 of 2008, titled Lajya Devi and others vs. The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. and another, whereby compensation only to the tune of Rs.5,19,600/-, with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of the claim petitoin till deposit, was awarded in favour of the claimants and the owner/insured was saddled with the liability, (for short, the impugned award). 2. The insurer and the claimants have not questioned the impugned award on any count, thus, the same has attained finality so far as it relates to them. 3. Feeling aggrieved, the owner has questioned the impugned award on the ground that the Tribunal has wrongly fastened the liability on him. 4. Thus, the only question to be determined in this appeal is – Whether the owner/insured came to be rightly saddled with the liability? The answer is in the negative for the following reasons. 5. The claimants, in paragraphs 10 and 24 of the claim petition, have specifically pleaded that the deceased was traveling in the offending vehicle as owner of goods. It is apt to reproduce paragraphs 10 and 24 of the claim petition hereunder: “10. Yes, the deceased was traveling by the ill fated vehicle as owner of goods. 24. That the deceased was traveling by the ill fated vehicle alongwith his goods which was being driven by its driver in a very rash and negligent manner. ……..” 6. Owner/insured (original respondent No.2) had filed reply to the claim petition and admitted that the deceased was traveling in the offending vehicle as owner of the goods. “Paras 8 to 10. That the paras No.8 to 10 of the petition are admitted to be correct. Para No.24. That the para No.24 of the petition is incorrect hence denied. The accident did not take place due to rash and negligent driving of answering respondent but it took place due to mechanical failure of vehicle and could not be averted despite of best efforts of the answering respondent.” 7. Para No.24. That the para No.24 of the petition is incorrect hence denied. The accident did not take place due to rash and negligent driving of answering respondent but it took place due to mechanical failure of vehicle and could not be averted despite of best efforts of the answering respondent.” 7. The insurer has filed the reply to the claim petition, which is quite evasive and cannot be termed as denial to the averments made in the claim petition, in terms of Order 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 8. In view of the above, it is not understandable as to how the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the deceased, at the time of accident, was traveling in the offending vehicle as gratuitous passenger, when the claimants specifically pleaded the said fact and the owner admitted the same, as discussed hereinabove. 9. Apart from it, the insurer has not led any evidence to prove that the offending vehicle was being plied in contravention to the terms and conditions of the insurance policy or that the driver of the offending vehicle was not having a valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident. Thus, it can safely be said that the insurer has failed to prove that the owner has committed willful breach. 10. In addition to above, the impugned award needs to be set aside on another ground that in Claim Petition bearing No.74 of 2008, titled Nimo Devi and another vs. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. and another, decided on 30th April, 2009, arising out of the same accident, the insurer was saddled with the liability. A copy of the award passed in the said petition was placed on record by the learned counsel for the appellant on the last date of hearing, when the learned counsel for the insurer was asked to verify whether the said judgment has attained finality. Today, the learned counsel for the insurer was not in a position to state whether the said judgment has attained finality or not. Be that as it may, the fact remains that in another case, arising out of the same accident, the insurer was saddled with the liability. 11. In view of the above discussion, it is held that the Tribunal has fallen in error in saddling the insured/appellant with the liability and has wrongly discharged the insurer. Be that as it may, the fact remains that in another case, arising out of the same accident, the insurer was saddled with the liability. 11. In view of the above discussion, it is held that the Tribunal has fallen in error in saddling the insured/appellant with the liability and has wrongly discharged the insurer. Accordingly, the impugned award is modified and the insurer is saddled with the liability. The insurer is directed to deposit the amount, alongwith uptodate interest, in the Registry of this Court, within a period of six weeks from today, and on deposit, the Registry is directed to release the amount in favour of the claimants, alongwith interest, through their bank accounts, after proper verification, strictly in terms of the impugned award. The amount deposited by the insured/appellant is also awarded in faovur of the claimants, in addition to the amount awarded by the Tribunal, as litigation costs throughout. 12. The appeal stands allowed and disposed of accordingly.