JUDGMENT : SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, J. 1. Notices upon the respondent nos.1 and 2 have been received by themselves and notices upon the respondent nos.3 and 4 have been received by their father. Thus, notice upon them has been validly served. However, till date, nobody has appeared on their behalf. 2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants in all these appeals submits that all the cases are arising out of same judgment and award passed by the learned Tribunal and the claimants have already received the awarded amount and in view of that they are not appearing before this Court. 3. From the Office Note in all the cases suggest that the respondents have been validly served, however, no appearance has been made on their behalf. 4. Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants. 5. All these appeals have been preferred against the award dated 03.3.2020 passed in Motor Accident Claim Case No.90 of 2013 and analogous cases whereby the learned Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs.6,74,800/-; Rs.7,00,000/-; Rs.6,94,000/- and Rs.7,42,000/- along with interest @ 7.5 % per annum in Misc. Appeal No. 297 of 2020, Misc. Appeal No. 298 of 2020, Misc. Appeal No. 299 of 2020 and Misc. Appeal No. 300 of 2020, respectively to the claimants from the date of filing of the claim case within 30 days from the date of award and it was further directed that the Insurance company shall have the right to recover from the insured /owner after satisfying the liability/claim. 6. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants submits that Motor Accident Claim Case No.93 of 2013, 91 of 2013, 92 of 2013 and 93 of 2013 have been filed by the claimants for compensation arising out of same accident and all the claim case has been decided by the learned court by one award dated 03.03.2020 whereby the aforesaid award has been awarded in favour of the claimants. 7. He submits that the said claim applications have been filed alleging that on 7.2.2013 at about 11.45 a.m on Ghagra-Bishunpur Highway near Adar Ghati Dhodra bridge a Truck loaded with passengers of ‘Barat Party’ met with an accident wherein the ‘Barat Party’ were grievously injured and few of the passengers died in the aforesaid accident. 7. He submits that the said claim applications have been filed alleging that on 7.2.2013 at about 11.45 a.m on Ghagra-Bishunpur Highway near Adar Ghati Dhodra bridge a Truck loaded with passengers of ‘Barat Party’ met with an accident wherein the ‘Barat Party’ were grievously injured and few of the passengers died in the aforesaid accident. It is alleged that the residents of Village Chundri (Nawatoli) from the house of Karmali Oraon villagers boarded a Truck bearing registration No.JH-11B-7535 for marriage ceremony. It is alleged that the driver of the Truck was drunken and was driving the vehicle in rash and negligent manner as a result of which the above said accident took place. The occurrence was informed to the Ghagra Police Station and pursuant to that the F.I.R being Ghagra P.S. Case No.10 of 2013 dated 7.2.2013 was registered under section 279, 337, 338 and 304A of the IPC. After investigation, the charge sheet has been submitted against the driver namely Balkishun Verma. 8. He submits that the appellant-company filed written statement in the said claim case and denied the liability on the ground that the deceased was travelling as gratuitous passenger along with other co-passengers in that Truck and therefore, the owner of the aforesaid Truck has violated the terms and condition of the insurance policy and in view of that the insurance company is not liable. He submits that the learned court has framed the issues and decided the said claim by the said order /judgment. He submits that the issue no.4 was with regard to violation of the terms and conditions. He submits that however the learned Tribunal has directed to first comply the award by the insurance company and to recover the same and on this ground, he submits that the appeals have been preferred. 9. The issue no.4 was framed on the point of violation of the terms and conditions and the learned Tribunal has elaborately dealt with that issue and considered all the aspects and has decided the issue in favour of the appellants. However, in view of the several judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the direction has been issued to pay the same first by the insurance company and recover the same from the owner. Thus, the right of recovery is already there to the appellants. There is no illegality in the award. 10. However, in view of the several judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the direction has been issued to pay the same first by the insurance company and recover the same from the owner. Thus, the right of recovery is already there to the appellants. There is no illegality in the award. 10. It has been pointed that the award has already been satisfied in favour of the claimants and inspite of valid service of notice, owner and driver have chosen not to appear in the present appeals and the owner has also not appeared before the learned Tribunal, that fact has been disclosed in the supplementary affidavit filed in respective appeals. 11. In view of above, there is no illegality in the award and as such all these appeals are dismissed. 12. In view of the above, the statutory amount deposited by the appellants shall be released in favour of the insurance company on proper application before the Registry as it was pointed out and stated in supplementary affidavit that award has been satisfied. 13. Pending petition, if any, also stands disposed of accordingly.