JUDGMENT : Sureshwar Thakur, J. The learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (II), Kangra at Dharmshala, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as the learned tribunal), adjudged upon the successors-in-interest of deceased one Payare Lal, compensation amount comprised in a sum of Rs.3,51,000/-, apposite indemnificatory liability whereof stood fastened upon the insurer of the offending vehicle. The insurer of the offending vehicle is aggrieved therefrom, hence, it has preferred the instant appeal before this Court. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant has not contested the validity of the findings recorded upon trite issue No.1. Consequently, it is to be concluded that the demise of one Payre Lal, evidently the predecessor-in-interest of the claimants, arose from the rash and negligent manner of driving of the offending vehicle by its driver, who is impleaded as respondent No.4 in the instant appeal. The solitary contention addressed before this Court by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant for invalidating the fastening of the apposite indemnificatory liability upon the insurer, is anvilled upon the factum of the learned tribunal, irrevering the trite factum of the apposite registration certificate borne in Ex.R-3, making a vivid enunciation therein, of the offending vehicle standing registered as a goods vehicle. Also with the owner of the offending vehicle, RW-2, in his testification borne in his cross-examination making an articulation in consonance therewith, thereafter, also with RW-3 echoing in his testification borne in his examination-in-chief, of, the apposite insurance cover borne in Ex. Rx, not, covering risk of gratuitous passenger carried in the offending vehicle, especially with evidently, the passenger premium for covering the risk of gratuitous passenger(s) carried in the offending vehicle, remaining untendered by its owner, thereupon the fastening of the apposite indemnificatory liability upon the Insurance company/appellant herein, being hence legally infirm. However, the aforesaid contention would hold vigour, in case, there exists palpable vivid evidence in display of the deceased, not, traveling in the offending vehicle along with his goods, rather his being carried therein as a gratuitous passenger. 3. For unearthing the trite evidence in respect thereof, initially an allusion is warranted vis-a-vis the trite pleadings constituted in the claim petition, in respect of the manner of occupation of the offending vehicle by deceased Payare Lal. 3. For unearthing the trite evidence in respect thereof, initially an allusion is warranted vis-a-vis the trite pleadings constituted in the claim petition, in respect of the manner of occupation of the offending vehicle by deceased Payare Lal. In case, the pleadings constituted in the claim petition, unveil, of, deceased Payare Lal gratuitously occupying the offending vehicle, thereupon, testificatory evidence contrary thereto would be discardable, emphatically with the aforesaid apposite averments embodied in the claim petition, hence, attracting thereon the principle of estopple of pleadings, with all concomitant effects, of, the claimants being barred to lead evidence in rebuttal thereto. Now when an allusion to the trite apposite averments embodied in the claim petition, in respect of the manner of occupation of the offending vehicle by deceased Payare Lal, makes an unambiguous display of deceased Payare Lal along with his friends traveling in the offending vehicle, for all visiting “Ghar Mata Mandir”. Concomitantly, the aforesaid averment cast in the claim petition, yields a conclusion of the deceased hence being explicitly averred to gratuitously occupy the offending vehicle, thereupon, the aforesaid averment, hence, attracts vis-a-vis it besides vis-a-vis the claimants, the interdictory principle of estoppel, whereupon the claimants stood defacilitated to adduce testificatory evidence contrary thereto. However, the owner of the offending vehicle, while stepping into the witness box, has beyond the aforesaid pleadings constituted in the claim petition, proceeded to testify, of, deceased Payare Lal hiring the offending vehicle, for his therein carrying his goods, thereupon, he has concerted to propagate of the deceased along with his goods traveling in the offending vehicle. The aforesaid espousals, when obviously are in rife discordance with the apposite pleadings in respect thereto cast in the apposite claim petition, thereupon, they are discardable rather are construable to be a sequel of an afterthought deployed stratagem by the owner, for his contriving to beget exculpation of his apposite indemnificatory liability. In aftermath, with the deceased evidently traveling as a gratuitous passenger, in the offending vehicle, also with RW-3 in his testification making a disclosure that the relevant insurance cover borne in Ex. Rx, not, thereunder encompassing the risk of a gratuitous passenger traveling therein, given the insured, not, defraying any extra premium for covering the apposite risk of gratuitous passenger(s), thereupon, it was unbefitting for the learned tribunal, to, fasten the apposite indemnificatory liability upon the insurer. 4. Rx, not, thereunder encompassing the risk of a gratuitous passenger traveling therein, given the insured, not, defraying any extra premium for covering the apposite risk of gratuitous passenger(s), thereupon, it was unbefitting for the learned tribunal, to, fasten the apposite indemnificatory liability upon the insurer. 4. For the reasons recorded hereinabove, the instant appeal is partly allowed. Accordingly, the award rendered by the learned tribunal is modified to the extent that the indemnificatory liability(ies) vis-a-vis the amounts of compensation assessed by the learned tribunal being ordered to be borne by the owner of the offending vehicle, namely, Jitender Oberia, respondent No.5 herein. All pending applications also stand disposed of. No order as to costs.