JUDGMENT Sureshwar Thakur, J. - The Instant Appeal, Is, Directed Against The Award Of 19.12.2012, pronounced by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Fast Track Court, Chamba, H.P. in M.A.C No. 61/12/11, whereunder an apt indemnificatory liability stands fastened, upon, the insurer of the offending vehicle/ appellant herein, to, pay compensation amount constituted in a sum of Rs. 3,60,600/ alongwith interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum, visavis, the claimants''. 2. The Learned Counsel For The Appellant, Does Not contest, the affirmative findings returned upon the issue appertaining, to, the relevant mishap being caused by the rash, and, negligent manner, of, driving, of, the offending vehicle by its driver. However, the learned counsel for the appellant, has, contested, the, fastening of the apposite indimnificatory liability upon it, by, making a strenuous contention, before this Court (i) that with the dependents of the deceased, casting an averment at Sr. No. 10, of, the claim petition, qua the deceased, " traveling, in the illfated vehicle alongwith his photography cameras, flash lights, and, other allied equipments of photography", however with no pleading existing in the claim petition, qua, the deceased rather occupying the vehicle, evidently registered, as, borne by the apposite Registration Certificate, as, a "Light Goods Vehicle", as owner of the goods carried thereon, (ii) hence, when the deceased was not traveling in the illfated vehicle, in, the apposite manner/capacity, of, his evidently being the owner of the goods carried in the vehicle, thereupon, it was unbefitting for the learned MACT concerned, to, fasten an apt indemnificatory liability, upon it. 3. The aforesaid submission has force, (a) given though the dependents of the deceased, in, paragraph 10 of the claim petition, making an averment of the deceased, traveling, in the illfated vehicle alongwith his photography cameras flash lights and other allied equipments of photography (b) however they failed to thereafter hence aver the imminent factum, of, his hence traveling, in the vehicle, being, in the ordained permissible capacity as owner of the goods purportedly, carried in the illfated vehicle (c) whereas, with the apposite Registration Certificate appertaining to the vehicle, and, as borne in Ex. RZ rather unraveling qua it being registered, as a "Light Goods Vehicle", and, its further unfolding qua, the, permissible number of passengers, hence being upto three, (d) thereupon though the relevant vehicle at the relevant time did carry the permissible number of passengers, (e) yet thereafter it was also enjoined to be cogently proven qua the apt passengers borne in the relevant vehicle, also, owning the goods purportedly carried in the relevant vehicle, at, the relevant time. However, the learned tribunal did not yet insist, upon, the aforestated factum being pleaded, by the dependents of the deceased, rather it considered, the, mere occupancy(s) of the relevant vehicle, by the deceased, and, of his carrying photography cameras, flash lights, and, other allied equipments of photography, hence per se galvanising a conclusion, qua, perse thereupon, his holding the apt valid permissible capacity, and, thereafter fastened the apt indemnificatory liability, upon, the appellant herein. The reason(s) aforestated, is perse shaky, and, is amenable for rejection (a) given the dependents relying, upon FIR, borne in Ex. PW2/A, wherein, there exists a categorical echoing, qua, the offending vehicle at the relevant time, carrying Baratis, and, in consequence of the vehicle suffering an accident, 2027 passengers borne therein, hence suffering their demise(s). Consequently, when hence with the aforestated number, of, passengers, being at the relevant time, hence carried in the vehicle concerned, thereupon ipso facto rendered impossible, the, carrying thereon, of, any goods, (b) besides, concomitantly rendered the deceased, to, at the relevant time, being rather not amenable for his being construed to be holding the apposite permissible valid capacity, of, his owning them, nor he can be construed to be traveling in the relevant vehicle, as owner thereof, conspicuously when no evidence in respect thereof stands adduced. Consequently, the fastening, of, the apt indemnificatory liability, upon, the insurer was inapt, and, the apt liability fastened, upon, the insurance company, for, liquidating to the claimants, the, compensation amount, warrants, it, being quashed and set aside. 4. Consequently, the fastening, of, the apt indemnificatory liability, upon, the insurer was inapt, and, the apt liability fastened, upon, the insurance company, for, liquidating to the claimants, the, compensation amount, warrants, it, being quashed and set aside. 4. Be That As It May Given With, The, Hon''ble Apex Court in a judgment pronounced, in case titled as Manuara Khatun and Others versus Rajesh Kumar Singh and Others , (2017) 4 SCC 796 , relevant paragraph 15 whereof stands extracted hereinafter, making a clear expostulation of law that where "gratuitous passengers", at the relevant time, hence, are carried in the vehicle concerned, and, when hence the insurance company, cannot be saddled with the apt indemnificatory liability, arising, out of the accident rather, yet, also with the Hon''ble Apex Court, hence making a direction upon the insurance company, to redeem payments of awarded sums of compensation, to the claimants, and, thereafter permitting it, to, recover it from the insured. In sequel, this Court in consonance therewith, apply(s) hereat, the principle of "pay and recover", and, thereafter directs the appellant to pay the compensation amount, as, assessed in the impugned award, to, the claimants,, with, liberty reserved qua it, to, thereafter by instituting an Execution Petition under Section 174 of the Motor Vehicles Act, hence, in, accordance with law recover it, from the insured. "15. This question also fell for consideration recently in National insurance Co. Ltd v. Saju Paul wherein this Court took note of entire previous case law on the subject mentioned above and examined the question in the contest of section 147 of the Act. While allowing the appeal filed by the insurance company by reversing the judgment of the High Court, it was held on facts that since the victim was travelling in offending vehicle as "gratuitous passenger" and hence the insurance company cannot be held liable to suffer the liability arising out of accident on the strength of the insurance policy. However, this Court keeping in view the benevolent object of the Act and other relevant factors arising in the case, issued the directions against the insurance company to pay the awarded sum to the claimants and then to recover the said sum from the insured in the same proceedings by applying the principle of "pay and recover"." In view of the aforesaid observations, the present appeal stands disposed of. All pending applications stand disposed of accordingly.