THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.S. APPA RAO C.M.A.No. 2652 of 2003 JUDGMENT: Aggrieved against the decree and judgment dated 3.12.2002 in O.P.No. 328 of 1998 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-District Judge, Nizamabad, the present C.M.A. is filed urging that the tribunal ought to have seen that the documents filed by the claimants Exs.A-1 to A-3 would reveal that the deceased was an unauthorized passenger and as such the deceased is not entitled for any compensation and that award of the tribunal below is illegal, contrary to law, weight of evidence and on all probabilities of the case. The learned counsel for the respondent supported the findings of the lower Court. Now the point for consideration is whether the Orders of the lower Court is sustainable? It is the contention of the Insurance Company-Appellant that the Insurance company does not admit that the lorry bearing No. APJ 9363 was insured with them and even otherwise the accident was not reported to the Insurance Company by the owner of the vehicle in collusion with the claimants to cause loss to the insurance company and that the deceased was an unauthorized passenger and as such the insurer is not liable to pay any compensation. In order to prove the accident, the husband of the deceased was examined as P.W.1 and examined P.W-2 a direct witness to the accident and marked Exs.A-1 to A-5. The manner in which the accident was caused is not disputed. Admittedly, the offending vehicle was insured with the appellant-insurance company under Ex.B-1 policy and the same was in force on the date of the accident. The name of P.W-2 also find place in the charge sheet Ex.A-2 filed by the police. The averments in the charge sheet also shows that P.W-2 is a direct witness to the accident. Hence, the evidence of P.W-2 is of paramount importance while deciding the main issue on hand. Admittedly, P.W-2 Noothula Gangaram deposed that on the date of the accident it was at about 7-30 p.m. while he was present at his fields situate at the outskirts of Palem village adjacent to the road leading to Palem from Morthad, he noticed the offending lorry proceeding towards Palem village driven by its driver at a high speed, rash and negligent manner and lost control over the lorry, due to which the lorry turtled down, the inmates of the lorry sustained injuries along with Shankaramma and she succumbed to the injuries. In spite of the detailed cross examination on behalf of the respondent-insurance company, P.W-2 asserted that the deceased Shankaramma was a labourer on a lorry meant for loading and unloading of the sand. The respondent-insurance company does not adduce any rebuttal evidence to rebut the evidence of P.W-2 on that score. Except filing Ex.B-1-insurance policy, no documents were filed and no witnesses were examined on behalf of the respondent. Thus, the evidence of P.W-2 remained unchallenged and proved that the deceased being a labourer met with an accident while traveling in the offending lorry. In view of the evidence of P.W-2 coupled with the averments in the charge sheet Ex.A-2 and non adducing of rebuttal evidence on behalf of respondent, it is amply proved that the deceased Shankaramma was a labourer in the offending lorry meant for transportation of sand. Therefore, in the totality of the circumstances, the finding of the tribunal that the insurance company is liable to pay compensation to the petitioners needs no interference thereby, the Orders are sustainable. In the result, the C.M.A. is dismissed. ___________________ 10.3.2011 CHV