THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.S. APPA RAO C.M.A. No.2656 of 2003 JUDGMENT This appeal is preferred by the appellant-insurance company questioning the finding of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge, Nalgonda, in O.P. No.509 of 2000, dated 03-12-2002, for granting of compensation to the first respondent-injured. The appellant is the insurance company. Learned Standing Counsel for the appellant argued that the order of the lower Court is not sustainable as the injured was travelling as unauthorized passenger (gratuitous passenger) at the time of accident. The point for consideration is whether the order of the Tribunal is sustainable and that the petitioner is entitled for compensation. In the lower Court, the first respondent-injured was examined as P.W.1 and Exs.A1 to A4 were marked on his behalf. The manner in which the accident occurred is not disputed and it is to be remembered that the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle in which the injured was travelling. The crux of the issue is, whether the injured is a gratuitous passenger or not. A perusal of the evidence of P.W.1 shows that when he and his wife were proceeding in the offending vehicle by sitting in the cabin with their goods, he met with the accident. He also stated in his evidence that he paid Rs.60/- to the driver of the vehicle for transportation of the goods. In response to the same, there was no cross-examination of P.W.1 that he was a gratuitous passenger at the time of accident. The insurance company has not taken any steps on that score. Non-suggesting to P.W.1 that he is a gratuitous passenger. It shows that the evidence of P.W.1 left unchallenged and therefore, it is proved that he is not a gratuitous passenger. In that view of the case, the liability will be fastened on the insurance company. Therefore, the finding of the lower Court, on facts, is justified. Having regard to the evidence on record, the injured sustained injuries while he was proceeding on the offending vehicle at the time of accident. Therefore, he is entitled for compensation. The lower Court granted compensation of Rs.16,000/- to the injured, which is just and reasonable in the facts and circumstances of the case on hand. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. _______________ K.S. APPA RAO, J Date. 02.2011. NDR/SJ THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.S. APPA RAO C.M.A. No.2656 OF 2003 Date: .02.2011 ndr