JUDGMENT :

Sanjeev Kumar, J.

1. This bunch of appeals filed by the Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the 'insurer') arises out of a common award dated 30.09.2019 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Doda (hereinafter referred to as the 'Tribunal') whereby in as many as seven claim petitions filed by the claimants who suffered multiple injuries in the motor vehicle accident that took place on 03.02.2013 when the offending vehicle which was being driven by respondent No. 2 in a rash and negligent manner lost its control, have been decided by the Tribunal. The offending vehicle was a Bolero Pick Up bearing Registration No. JK08B-8408.

2. The claimants, who suffered permanent disabilities of different types, filed claim petitions before the Tribunal seeking compensation from the owner-cum-driver, namely Jai Singh, respondent No. 2 herein and also arrayed the insurer as party respondent. It is not in dispute that the offending vehicle was a goods vehicle and the same was insured with the insurer on the date of accident. The insurer alone contested the claim petitions, whereas respondent No. 2 despite service chose not to appear and contest the claim petitions. He was, thus, set ex parte. The insurer filed its objections.

3. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed the following issues:

(i) Whether the petitioners named in each claim petitions namely, Meeya Mohammed, Gulla, Mithu, Mohd. Shafi, Rafiq Ahmed, Mohd. Farid and Mohd. Khan were injured in an accident on 03.02.2013 when they were travelling in the offending vehicle No. JK08B-8408 from Dhoni to Latti and when reached at Dasian Pul, the vehicle met with an accident due to rash and negligent driving by the driver respondent No. 2 as a result of which the petitioners named above received multiple grievous injuries? OPP

(ii) Whether respondent No. 2 was not holding a valid driving licence at the time of accident? OPR-1

(iii) Whether respondent No. 1 is not liable to pay any compensation as the offending vehicle was driven in contravention of the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy and R/C? OPR-1

(iv) Whether the petitioners were travelling as an unauthorized passengers in the alleged accident as risk of gratuitous passengers are not covered under the terms and conditions of the insurance policy? OPR-1

(v) In case issue No. 1 is proved in affirmative, whether the petitioners are entitled to any compensation under Motor Vehicle Act and if so from whom and to what extent? OPP

(vi) Relief?

4. The claimants besides examining themselves as their own witnesses also produced Dr. M. Zaffarullah, in support their claim. The insurer examined its Senior Legal Officer namely Vikas Rana and Surinder Chib, Junior Assistant in the office of RTO Kathua, in rebuttal.

5. The Tribunal, after analyzing the evidence on record, held issue No. 1 proved in favour of the claimants. It was held that the claimants had suffered multiple injuries in the accident that took place on 03.02.2013 when the offending vehicle which was being driven by respondent No. 2 in a rash and negligent manner lost its control.

6. Issue No. 2, the onus to proof whereof was on the insurer was held not proved.

7. With regard to issue Nos. 3 and 4, the Tribunal held that the claimants were travelling in the goods vehicle as gratuitous passengers and were, thus, not covered under the terms and conditions of the Insurance policy. Relying upon the judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court and also of this Court in the case of Javed Ahmed Shah vs. Praveen Bano and others, 2010 (1) SLJ, 202, the Tribunal applied the principle of 'pay and recover'. The Insurer was, thus, directed to satisfy the award in the first instance and then recover the same from respondent No. 2.

8. After returning its finding on the aforesaid issues, the Tribunal held all the claimants entitled to