Judgment : All these four appeals have arisen out of a common award dated 10th March 2020 passed by the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Srinagar, whereby the Insurance Company has been directed to pay the compensation in favour of the claimants in the two claim petitions and further liberty has been granted to the Insurance Company to recover the same from the owner of the vehicle. In petition titled “Abdul Ahad Bhat and others Versus Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited & Anr”, a sum of Rs. 6,50,000/ has been awarded in favour of claimants, whereas in petition, titled, “Mohammad Ramzan Dar and others Versus Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited. & Anr”, sum of Rs. 12,04,000/ has been awarded in favour of claimants. 2. Mac App. No.38/2020 and Mac App. No.37/2020 have been filed by the Appellant-Insurance Company, primarily on the ground that the owner was liable to pay compensation and the liability could not have been fastened upon the Appellant-Insurance Company as the Tribunal had held that both the deceased persons, namely, Abdul Hamid Dar and Mohsin Bhat, were travelling as gratuitous passengers. 3. Other two appeals i.e. Mac App. No.61/2020 and Mac App. No.63/2020 have been filed by the owner-cum-driver of the vehicle namely Rouf Ahmed Bhat, against the same award on the ground that the learned Tribunal has wrongly come to the conclusion that both the deceased persons were travelling as gratuitous passengers and further that the vehicle was insured with the Respondent-Insurance Company and the appellant- owner had paid an extra premium of Rs.75.00 that covers the liability for operation/maintenance for three persons and further that Tribunal has failed to appreciate that the Respondent-Insurance Company was under statutory obligation to pay compensation to the claimants, as the Respondent- Insurance Company had failed to establish that there was any breach of terms and conditions of the policy by way of cogent evidence. 4. Mr. Imtiyaz Ahmad, learned counsel for the Insurance Company has vehemently argued that once the Tribunal concluded that both the deceased persons were travelling in the goods vehicle as gratuitous passengers, so no direction could have been issued to the Insurance Company to pay the award amount to the claimants as it was the sole responsibility of the owner of the vehicle to satisfy the award. 5. Mr. 5. Mr. Omais Kawoos, learned counsel for owner-driver of the vehicle, vehemently argued that there was abundant evidence that the deceased Mohsin Ahmad Bhat was travelling in a vehicle being the owner of the goods and the deceased Abdul Hamid Dar was travelling as a labourer, as such no liberty could have been granted to the Insurance Company to recover the awarded amount from the owner-driver. He has placed reliance upon the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in case titled “Hanumanagouda v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd.”, (2014) 9 SCC 341 . 6. M/S G. N. Shaheen and Altaf Khan, learned counsels appearing for the claimants in all the appeals submitted that the learned Tribunal has rightly passed the award and there is no infirmity in the award. 7. Heard and perused the record. The quantum of the compensation has not been disputed by any of the parties. 8. The facts which are necessary for the disposal of these present appeals are that the claimants/petitioners in claim petition tiled “Mohammad Ramzan Dar and others versus Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited &Anr.” filed a claim petition for grant of compensation on account of death of Abdul Hamid Dar, aged 22 years, son of claimants/petitioner No.1 and 2, who died in a road accident on 20th September, 2021 at 2: 15 PM. 9. The claimants/petitioners in claim petition titled “Abdul Ahad Bhat and others versus Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited &Anr.” filed the claim petition for grant of compensation on account of death of Mohsin Ahmad Bhat, aged 17 years, in the same road accident. In the said claim petition, it was also stated by the petitioners that the deceased was travelling in the offending vehicle as owner of the goods which were to be taken to home by the deceased. 10. The objections were filed by Insurance Company and the owner-cum- driver of the offending vehicle. 11. Though the issues were framed separately by the Tribunal, but they were dealt and decided together. The following issues were framed/considered by the learned Tribunal:— 1. Whether on 20.09.2011 a vehicle (Half Deck Loader Tata Model ACEHT) bearing registration No.JK01N/6495 being driven by respondent No.2 rashly and negligently coming Nishat from Hazratbal Dargah on reaching near Shakri Mohalla lost control over his vehicle dashed with CRPF Vehicle No.HR602355, causing thereby fatal injuries to Ab. The following issues were framed/considered by the learned Tribunal:— 1. Whether on 20.09.2011 a vehicle (Half Deck Loader Tata Model ACEHT) bearing registration No.JK01N/6495 being driven by respondent No.2 rashly and negligently coming Nishat from Hazratbal Dargah on reaching near Shakri Mohalla lost control over his vehicle dashed with CRPF Vehicle No.HR602355, causing thereby fatal injuries to Ab. Hamid Dar and Mohsin Ahmad Bhat who were travelling in the said vehicle and the deceased succumbed to their injuries. OPP 2. Whether the deceased were travelling in the offending vehicle unauthorized, as there is no risk coverage of occupants/passengers travelling in the goods vehicle, if so, what is its effect on the claim petition? (OPP-1) 3. Whether the respondent No.2-owner/driver was driving the offending vehicle knowingly with invalid and in effective DL and other vehicular documents like RP, FC etc on the material date of accident, if yes, the respondent insured has committed breach of policy stipulations absolved the respondent No.1 Company on account of petitioners claim? (OPR-1) 4. In case the issue No.1 is proved in affirmative, to what amount of compensation the petitioners are entitled to, from whom and in what proportion? (OPP) 5. Relief. 12. The Petitioners/claimants have examined the witnesses namely Mohammad Ramzan Dar (Petitioner No.1, father of deceased Abdul Hamid Dar), Mushtaq Ahmad Dar, Riyaz Ahmd Dar, Manzoor Ahmad Dar, Altaf Ahmad Dar, Mohammad Shafi Dar, Mst. Noora W/o Abdul Ahad Bhat (Petitioner No.2 i.e. mother of the deceased Mohsin Bhat), Mohammad Rafiq Dar, Mohammad Abass Dar and Abdul Ahad Bhat (Petitioner No. 1 i.e. father of the deceased Mohsin Bhat).The appellant-Insurance Company examined three witnesses namely ASI, Mohammad Ramzan Bhat, Muneeb Ahmad Khan, (Legal Executive Insurance Co.) and Bilal Ahmad Shah (Licensing Authority RTO), Srinagar. The owner-driver of the vehicle namely Rouf Ahmed Bhat, besides examining himself also examined Ghulam Mohammad Bhat and Nissar Ahmad Sofi. 13. The Learned Tribunal vide award impugned held that both the deceased persons were travelling as un-authorised passengers and as such though Insurance Company was directed to satisfy the award but was granted liberty to recover the amount from the owner-driver of the vehicle. In view of the contention raised by the parties, following issues arise for consideration of this Court:— I. Whether the learned tribunal was correct in arriving at the conclusion that both the deceased persons were travelling in the offending vehicle as gratuitous passengers? II. In view of the contention raised by the parties, following issues arise for consideration of this Court:— I. Whether the learned tribunal was correct in arriving at the conclusion that both the deceased persons were travelling in the offending vehicle as gratuitous passengers? II. Whether the Insurance Company is not liable to satisfy the award and instead owner is under legal obligation to satisfy the award? 14. To determine the issue No. I. as well as to examine the correctness of the finding of the Tribunal, it is necessary to have brief resume of the relevant portion of the evidence led by the parties. 15. PW Mohammed Ramzan Dar stated that the deceased Abdul Hamid Dar was his son, who died in the road accident. He was of 22 years of age. The deceased was travelling in the load carrier and used to load material in the load carrier. He was standing on one side of the road at Shikari Mohalla Four Show road. In the meantime, a load carrier in which deceased was travelling came and struck against the army vehicle. The driver of the load carrier fled away from the spot. Four people were travelling in the load carrier. The two injured were shifted to hospital and one of them died in the hospital in the evening and the second injured i.e. his son died next day in SKIMS Hospital. The deceased was earning Rs. 25-26,000 per month. 16. During cross examination by the counsel for the Insurance Company stated that he was standing at the place of occurrence. The army vehicle was stationed on the one side of the road that proceeds towards Nishat. He cannot say whether the driver of the load carrier deliberately hit the army vehicle or not. The police was present on the spot and took the injured to the hospital for treatment. He gave statement to the police. 17. PW Mushtaq Ahmad Dar deposed that occurrence took place in the month of December 2011. The load carrier was being driven by its driver in high speed and it hit the army vehicle. The occupants in the load carrier namely Abdul Hamid Dar and Mohsin Ahmad Bhat sustained grievous injuries. Mohsin died in the hospital the same night and Abdul Hamid died next day. Abdul Hamid Dar was loading/unloading the vehicle and used to sell wood and was earning Rs.20-25,000 per month. The occupants in the load carrier namely Abdul Hamid Dar and Mohsin Ahmad Bhat sustained grievous injuries. Mohsin died in the hospital the same night and Abdul Hamid died next day. Abdul Hamid Dar was loading/unloading the vehicle and used to sell wood and was earning Rs.20-25,000 per month. During cross-examination by the counsel for the Insurance Company stated that he was the neighbour of the deceased. He cannot say as to whether the driver had deliberately hit the vehicle against the army vehicle. He was 3-4 feet away from the place of occurrence. It was getting dark when the accident took place. The accident had taken place in the month of September. He took the deceased to the hospital but he did not give the statement to the police. The load carrier is used for carrying the articles/material. No conductor is required in the load carrier. During cross-examination by the counsel for the owner-driver of the vehicle stated that need of the labourer arises while loading/unloading the load carrier. The persons travelling in the load carrier were not travelling as passengers. Abdul Hamid Dar and Mohsin Ahmad Bhat were working with the said load carrier for unloading/loading the material. 18. PW-Riyaz Ahmad Dar deposed that when the occurrence took place, he was returning home and on reaching near four-show road, a vehicle load carrier (Chota Hathi) dashed with the Army vehicle. The deceased Abdul Hamid Dar was working as a labourer with load carrier and was also running the business of firewood. During cross examination by the respondent No.2, stated that he had seen the occurrence himself and three persons were travelling in the load carrier at the time of accident. He also stated that the deceased was working as a labourer for loading/unloading of goods. 19. PW Manzoor Ahmad Dar stated that he knew Mohisn Bhat. The deceased was student of PUC. The age of the deceased was 18 years at the time of accident. The deceased had joined Polytechnic College. During cross-examination by the counsel for the respondent-Insurance Company stated that he has no relation with the petitioners. He reached on spot after 20 minutes of the occurrence. He has not given any statement to the police. 20. PW-Altaf Ahmad Dar stated Mohsin Ahmad Bhat was travelling in the load carrier in connection with some work, when the accident took place. He died in the accident. He reached on spot after 20 minutes of the occurrence. He has not given any statement to the police. 20. PW-Altaf Ahmad Dar stated Mohsin Ahmad Bhat was travelling in the load carrier in connection with some work, when the accident took place. He died in the accident. He also knew Abdul Hamid Dar-deceased, who was his neighbour. During cross examination stated that he was about 20 feet away from the place of occurrence and the occurrence took place between 4 to 6 P.M. The deceased was sitting in the cabin of the load carrier. 21. PW-Mohammad Shafi Dar deposed that Mohsin Ahmad Bhat died in the road traffic accident. The deceased was travelling in a load carrier. The vehicle was proceeding towards Nishat for loading the cement and CRPF vehicle hit the load carrier. During cross-examination stated that he cannot say as to by whose negligence accident took place. The CRPF vehicle was coming from opposite side. 22. PW-Mst. Noora, who is the mother of the deceased stated that his son Mohsin was 19 years of age and had filled the form for getting admission in Engineering College. The occurrence had taken place in the month of September. During cross-examination stated that the deceased used to leave the house at 8:00 A.M. She was having seven children and the deceased was eldest of all. 23. PW-Mohammad Rafiq Dar stated that Mohsin Bhat and another person who were travelling in the load carrier died in accident. During cross examination stated that the deceased Mohsin Bhat was sitting in the cabin of the load carrier. 24. PW-Mohammad Abass Dar stated that Mohsin died in the road traffic incident involving vehicle load carrier (Chota Hathi). The deceased, driver and one more person, were travelling in the said vehicle and the said vehicle was being driven by the driver at high speed. During cross examination stated that the deceased was sitting in the cabin of the load carrier and load carrier is not a passenger vehicle. He also stated that deceased was going to bring cement from Nishat. 25. PW-Abdul Ahad Bhat, one of the petitioners stated that the deceased Mohsin Ahmad Bhat was his son who died in the road traffic accident. He had sent the deceased to the market for purchasing the cement. He also stated that deceased was going to bring cement from Nishat. 25. PW-Abdul Ahad Bhat, one of the petitioners stated that the deceased Mohsin Ahmad Bhat was his son who died in the road traffic accident. He had sent the deceased to the market for purchasing the cement. During cross examination, he stated that besides the deceased, one more person died in the accident and they were travelling together. He had also deputed a labourer with the said vehicle. 26. RW-ASI Mohammed Ramzan Bhat deposed that information was received from reliable source that the accident had taken place due to high speed of the vehicle bearing registration number JK 01N/6495. FIR was registered. He went to the place of occurrence. As per the investigation conducted by him, the accident took place on 20th of September 2011. He reached on spot within 10 minutes of the occurrence. Initial investigation was conducted by him and subsequent investigation was conducted by some other Investigator. The load carrier had hit CRPF vehicle from behind. Rouf Ahmed Bhat was driving the load carrier. He had prepared the case diary but he has not seen the case diary before the tribunal. He had seized both the vehicles except driving license of Rouf Ahmed. The driver Rouf Ahmed was not present in the vehicle. The load carrier was empty at that time. Besides driver, two more persons were travelling in the load carrier. He cannot say in which capacity those persons were travelling in the load carrier. During cross-examination stated that load carrier was facing towards Nishat side. The deceased Abdul Hameed was a labourer by profession. 27. RW Rouf Ahmad Bhat, the owner as well as driver of the offending vehicle, submitted an affidavit wherein he stated that he was having a load carrier, that was being used for carrying cement, sand, soil, wood and other allied building material. On 20 September 2011, Abdul Ahad bhat, who is one of the petitioners in the claim petition asked him to bring cement required for the construction of his kitchen. On 20 September 2011, Abdul Ahad bhat, who is one of the petitioners in the claim petition asked him to bring cement required for the construction of his kitchen. After hiring his Load carrier, the said Abdul Ahad Bhat sent his son Mohsin Ahmad Bhat accompanying the labourer and paid Rs.800 to him as labour/fare charges for loading and unloading of the cement from the load carrier .Both the persons namely Mohsin Ahmad Bhat and Abdul Hamid Dar were in the load carrier and on reaching Shikari Mohalla during second turn of the trip for carrying cement, the accident took place. There was no negligence on his part. During cross-examination stated that he is the registered owner of the load carrier and the said vehicle is not a passenger vehicle. Police seized the load carrier. The load carrier was not loaded at the time of accident. Someone got the load carrier released from the court. The passengers were not insured for the load carrier. The deceased was travelling as owner of goods. The deceased had taken the vehicle on rent by paying Rs.800 for two trips. He knew the deceased Mohsin, as he was his classmate. 28. RW Ghulam Mohammed Bhat, who is the father of the Respondent Rouf Ahmed Bhat, submitted an affidavit and deposed on similar lines like his son. During cross-examination he stated that he was Employee of Floriculture department and he was posted in Shalimar Garden. He was performing duty on 20.09.2011 from 10 A.M to 5 P.M. At the time of accident, he was at home. 29. RW Muneeb Ahmed Khan stated that after receiving the report from the investigator it came to fore that respondent was plying the goods vehicle without having valid driving license to ply the same. The driver should have valid driving licence for plying the light goods vehicle but was not having the same on the date of accident. It also surfaced from the police record that the deceased persons were unauthorised passengers in the vehicle as it was not meant for carrying the passengers. The insurance policy was not covering the unauthorised passengers as no premium was paid or charged from the insured for the same. The respondent i.e. owner- Driver has committed the breach of policy stipulations as such company is not liable to indemnify the respondent. 30. The insurance policy was not covering the unauthorised passengers as no premium was paid or charged from the insured for the same. The respondent i.e. owner- Driver has committed the breach of policy stipulations as such company is not liable to indemnify the respondent. 30. RW Nisar Ahmad Sofi stated that he was driving a sumo on 20.09.2011 and on reaching Shikari Mohalla, accident took place. The load carrier collided with the CRPF vehicle which was standing on the road. There was no negligence on the part of the driver of the load carrier because CRPF vehicle was wrongly parked. During cross-examination stated that he was driving the sumo vehicle bearing registration number JK01J/6595 owned by Bashir Ahmed. He is an eyewitness to the accident. He did not visit the police station to inform the police regarding his presence at the place of accident. 31. RW Bilal Ahmed Shah stated that he has brought the official records pertaining to the driving license. As per the records of the RTO SRINAGAR, the license has been issued in respect of LMV and motor cycle with gear only, that is non-transport vehicle, as such the driver by virtue of the records of RTO Srinagar was not authorised to drive the commercial vehicle at the time of accident. 32. So far as the issue no. (I) is concerned it needs to be noted that the learned Tribunal had framed the issue No.2 regarding the contentions of the Insurance Company that both the deceased were travelling in the offending vehicle un-authorizedly and onus to prove the said issue was placed upon the Insurance Company. In order to prove the said issue, Insurance Company examined the investigating officer who had investigated the FIR, registered pursuant to the incident allegedly caused by the owner of the vehicle. 33. A perusal of statement of RW-ASI Mohammad Ramzan Bhat reveals that he reached on spot within ten minutes after the occurrence and conducted the initial investigation. In his deposition he stated that the driver of the offending vehicle was not present on spot and he prepared the site plan. He also stated that the load carrier was not loaded at the time of accident. Another witness examined by the Insurance Company RW-Muneeb Ahmad Khan (Legal Executive Ins. In his deposition he stated that the driver of the offending vehicle was not present on spot and he prepared the site plan. He also stated that the load carrier was not loaded at the time of accident. Another witness examined by the Insurance Company RW-Muneeb Ahmad Khan (Legal Executive Ins. Co.) also deposed that the deceased was carrying the unauthorized passengers in the vehicle as it was not meant for carrying the passengers and further the respondent owner-driver has committed breach of policy stipulations, as such, the Company is not liable to indemnify the owner. Statement of RW-Rouf Ahmad Bhat (owner cum driver) is also very relevant. The perusal of statement of Rouf Ahmad Bhat reveals that he has stated in his examination-in-chief that Abdul Ahad Bhat who is one of the petitioners asked him to bring cement required for the construction of his kitchen and after hiring the load carrier the said Abdul Ahad Bhat sent his son Mohsin Bhat accompanying the labourer and paid Rs.800/ to him as labour/fair charges for loading and unloading the cement from the load carrier, as such, both the persons Mohsin Bhat and Abdul Hamid Dar were in the load carrier when the above said load carrier collided with CRPF vehicle. In cross examination, he stated that the deceased was travelling as owner of the goods and deceased had taken the vehicle on rent by paying Rs.800/- for two trips and another deceased was travelling as labourer in the load carrier but simultaneously he has also stated that load carrier was not loaded at the time of accident. The driver-owner of the vehicle i.e. Rouf Ahmad Bhat also examined PW-Ghulam Mohammad Bhat, who deposed that his son was having load carrier and was being used for carrying cement, oil-wood and other allied building material. He further stated that Abdul Ahad Bhat paid Rs.800/ and sent his son namely Mohsin Ahmad Bhat and labourer for loading and unloading of cement. The two persons loaded the load carrier and on reaching Shikari Mohalla on 2nd turn of the trip for carrying cement, accident took place. In cross examination, he admitted that he was the employee of Floriculture Department and was performing duty on the date of accident from 10:00 AM to 5: 00 PM. It needs to be noted that accident took place on 20th September 2011. 34. In cross examination, he admitted that he was the employee of Floriculture Department and was performing duty on the date of accident from 10:00 AM to 5: 00 PM. It needs to be noted that accident took place on 20th September 2011. 34. The perusal of the claim petition filed by claimants on account of death of Mohsin Bhat reveals that in the claim petition, they had stated that the deceased was travelling in the offending vehicle as owner of the goods which were to be taken to the home by the deceased. So far as the claimants in claim petition filed on account of death of Abdul Hamid Dar is concerned, it is evident that the petitioners therein had specifically mentioned in para 10 of the petition that the driver of the vehicle i.e.Rouf Ahmad Bhat was coming towards Nishat from Dargah Hazratbal in load carrier along-with three more passengers and thereafter accident took place. In the claim petition, there is no whisper by the petitioners that the deceased Abdul Hamid Dar was working as a labourer. From the evidence it is established that at the time when the accident took place the vehicle was not loaded with any goods as is evident from the statement of Investigating Officer RW-Mohammad Ramzan Bhat and further from the statement of owner and driver of the vehicle i.e. Rouf Ahmed Bhat who is the appellant in the two appeals against the award. The contention of the owner cum driver who is the appellant in two appeals is that as per the insurance policy he had paid Rs.75/- for three persons and as such it is the Insurance Company who has to satisfy the award. There is nothing on record to demonstrate that the goods were loaded in the vehicle when the accident took place and Mohsin Bhat was travelling as owner of goods and Abdul Hamid Dar was travelling as labourer. The mere payment of premium for three persons for operation as well as maintenance of vehicle in question would not cover both the deceased persons as authorized passengers, as such, this Court does not find any reason whatsoever to take any view contrary to that of learned Tribunal that the deceased were travelling in the offending vehicle as unauthorized passengers. The judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in case titled “Hanumanagouda v. United India Insurance Co. The judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in case titled “Hanumanagouda v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd.”, (2014) 9 SCC 341 is not applicable in the instant case as there is no evidence that the load carrier was loaded with goods at the time of accident. 35. Now the second issue that arose is whether the Insurance Company is not liable to satisfy the award and liability should be fixed upon the owner only. Statement of RW-Muneeb Ahmad Khan, who was produced as a witness by the Insurance Company has categorically stated that the insurance policy was not covering the unauthorized passengers and since the owner and driver has committed breach of policy, as such, company is not liable to indemnify the respondent. In “National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Saju P. Paul”, (2013) 2 SCC 41 , Hon’ble Supreme Court directed the Insurance Company to pay the award to the claimant and liberty was granted to recover the same from the owner. In Manuara Khatun v. Rajesh Kr. Singh, (2017) 4 SCC 796 , Apex Court followed its earlier decision in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Saju P. Paul”, (2013) 2 SCC 41 and permitted the Insurance Company to pay the award to the claimants and recover the same from the owner. 36. Viewed thus, this Court does not find that the learned Tribunal has committed any illegality while passing the award impugned, as such, the award impugned is upheld. All the appeals filed by owner as well as Insurance Company are dismissed. 37. The amount deposited by the Insurance Company-appellant be released in favour of the claimants strictly in accordance with the award passed by the Tribunal after their due identification by the engaged counsels.