JUDGMENT : Mansoor Ahmad Mir, Subhro Kamal Mukherjee, JJ. Subject matter of this appeal is award, dated 16th February, 2011, made by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunalcum Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court, Mandi, District Mandi, H.P. (for short "the Tribunal") in Claim Petition No. 99/2003; 78/2005, titled as Sunita Devi and another versus Krishana Devi and another, whereby compensation to the tune of Rs. 9,55,448/- with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of the petition till its realization came to be awarded in favour of the claimants and the insurer was saddled with liability (for short “the impugned award”). 2. The claimants and the owner-insured 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 appellant insurer has questioned the impugned award on the grounds taken in the memo of the appeal. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant-insurer argued that deceased Bihari Lal was travelling in the offending vehicle as a gratuitous passenger at the time of the accident, thus, the Tribunal has fallen in an error in saddling the appellant-insurer with liability. 5. The argument, though attractive, is devoid of any force for the following reasons: 6. The claimants have specifically pleaded in para 24 of the claim petition that deceased Bihari Lal had boarded the offending vehicle alongwith his luggage and other household goods. The said fact has been admitted by the owner-insured in her reply. It is apt to reproduce relevant portion of para 24 of the reply filed by owner insured herein: “24. Para No. 24 of the petition is admitted to the extent that deceased boarded the truck No. HP-147073, at Darcha for Kanaid, Teh. Sunder Nagar, Distt. Mandi, H.P. and also carried his luggage and others house hold goods in the said truck to his home at Kanaid as this fact came to notice of respondent No. 1 after accident. However it is submitted that the deceased alongwith some other persons hired the truck and were sitting in the truck as a custodian of luggage and other household goods..............” 7. Viewed thus, there is an admission on the part of the owner-insured that deceased Bihari Lal was travelling in the offending vehicle as owner/custodian of the luggage and household goods and not as a gratuitous passenger. 8. Viewed thus, there is an admission on the part of the owner-insured that deceased Bihari Lal was travelling in the offending vehicle as owner/custodian of the luggage and household goods and not as a gratuitous passenger. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant-insurer has drawn attention of this Court to the definition of 'goods' contained in Section 2 (13) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “MV Act”), which reads as under: “2. Definitions. …......... (13) “goods” includes livestock, and anything (other than equipment ordinarily used with the vehicle) carried by a vehicle except living persons, but does not include luggage or personal effects carried in a motor car or in a trailer attached to a motor car or the personal luggage of passengers travelling in the vehicle.” 9. The said provision of law contains definition, which is inclusive and not exclusive. Deceased Bihari Lal was travelling in the offending vehicle alongwith his luggage and household goods. Thus, by no stretch of imagination, it can be said that deceased Bihari Lal was travelling in the offending vehicle as a gratuitous passenger. 10. Having said so, the Tribunal has rightly held that deceased Bihari Lal was not a gratuitous passenger but was travelling in the offending vehicle as the owner of the goods. 11. Even otherwise, there was no need to determine the issue for the reason that the owner-insured of the offending vehicle has made admission and the judgment was to be made on the basis of said admission in terms of the mandate of Order XII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short “CPC”). 12. The offending vehicle was duly insured with the appellant-insurer and the appellant insurer has failed to prove that the owner insured of the offending vehicle had committed any willful breach. Viewed thus, the Tribunal has rightly saddled the appellant insurer with liability in terms of the impugned award, is legal one and needs no interference. 13. Having glance of the above discussions, the impugned award is upheld and the appeal is dismissed. 14. Registry is directed 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. 15. Send down the record after placing copy of the judgment on Tribunal's file.