JUDGMENT : Sureshwar Thakur, J. The instant appeals, arise out of, a, common accident, and, are directed, against, the award pronounced by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kinnaur at Rampur Bushehar, H.P. in MAC Petition Nos. 33-R/2 of 2016/2015, 39-R/2 of 2016/2015 and 0000022 of 2015, whereby, it proceeded to assess compensation as follows:- (1) In FAO No. 327 of 2017:- A sum of Rs. 24,06,000/- along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of petition till the final realisation of the amount qua the dependents of deceased Mahender Singh, and, the apposite indemnificatory liability, is, fastened upon the insurer/appellant herein. (2) In FAO No. 328 of 2017:- A sum of Rs. 14,40,000/- along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of petition till the final realisation of the amount qua the dependents of deceased Ram Dayal, and, the apposite indemnificatory liability, is, fastened upon the insurer/appellant herein. (3) In FAO No. 477 of 2016:- A sum of Rs. 9,78,000/- along with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of petition till the final realisation of the amount qua the dependents of deceased Kailash Singh, and, the apposite indemnificatory liability, is, fastened upon the insurer/appellant herein. 2. The learned counsel for the appellant (s), submits before this Court, that he is contesting, the affirmative findings recorded by the learned MACT concerned, upon the issue appertaining to the relevant mishap, being caused by the rash and negligent driving, of, the ill-fated vehicle, by its driver. He submits, that, with the FSL concerned, in, its apposite report (s) making an echoing qua the driver of the vehicle being excessively inebriated, hence attraction (s) by the learned MACT concerned, of, the principle of res ipsa loquitur being inappropriate (i) rather he contends that with the driver espousing, that owing to, eruption of, a, sudden mechanical defect in the vehicle at the relevant time, hence the relevant mishap rather occurring (ii) whereas with the aforesaid ground standing dispelled by the learned MACT concerned, pointedly for want of tendering (s) into evidence the apt report of, the, mechanical expert concerned (iii) thereupon the relevant mishap is to be concluded, to arise, solely on the account, of, the gross excessively inebriated condition, at the relevant time, of the driver of the offending vehicle. The aforesaid ground cannot be accepted, in view of, a, judgment reported in 2010 (2) SLJ (H.P) 1207, titled as Khem Chand vs. Uma Devi and Others, wherein the ground of intoxication, at the relevant time, of, the apt driver, stands expostulated to be hence statutorily un-espousable, by the insurance company. However, the learned counsel for the appellant (s) still contends (iv) that with the relevant vehicle, as reflected, by the apposite registration certificate, being evidently registered as “light Motor Vehicle” (v) whereas at the relevant time, its evidently carrying 10 passengers, and, with no evidence being adduced (vi) qua the deceased owning the goods purportedly carried, at the relevant time, in the relevant vehicle, hence all the deceased passengers', as borne therein, were hence palpably carried therein, beyond the permissible carrying capacity, of the vehicle, (vii) AND are, to be concomitantly construed, to be traveling in the relevant vehicle, as “Gratuitous Passengers”, and, hence the indemnificatory liability, as, fastened upon the insurer, being inaptly fastened upon it. However, the aforesaid ground cannot be accepted, as, a witness namely Sanjay Negi, tendered into evidence, certain bills, emanating from M/s K.C Verma Trading company, (viii) and with the aforesaid bills, making a display qua at the time contemporaneous, to the occurrence, of, the relevant mishap, hence goods being purchased by the deceased passengers', from the aforesaid commercial establishment, and, theirs being carried, in the relevant vehicle, (ix) besides, when at the stage, of, theirs being tendered, into evidence, besides at the stage of exhibition marks being embossed thereon, the learned counsel for the insurance company rather omitted to rear apt objection, vis-a-vis, the embossing, of, exhibition marks thereon, (x) thereupon the learned counsel for the insurance company, cannot, contend that, for want of proofs thereof, emanating from author thereof, the aforesaid exhibits being neither readable nor admissible in evidence. 3. Reemphasizingly, even if the aforesaid contention has some force, it was yet incumbent, upon the, learned counsel for the appellant (s), to, thereafter institute, an appropriate application, before the learned MACT concerned, for, seeking its leave, for summoning, from, M/s K.C Trading company Badrash, from whose commercial establishment, the, apt bills emanated, the person concerned, who issued them, for hence his being enabled to step into the witness box, and, his thereat proving or disproving all scribings' occurring therein. However the learned counsel for the insurer, omitted, to, make the aforesaid endevour. Consequently, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant (s), qua, the aforesaid apt bills being neither readable nor admissible in evidence, is hence unacceptable. 3. In view of the above, there is no merit in the appeals, and, the same are accordingly dismissed. All pending applications also stand disposed of accordingly.