THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED C.M.A.No.1229 of 2003 JUDGMENT: The appellant-Insurance Company filed this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgment, dated 29.06.2000, passed in O.P.No.315 of 1996 by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional District Judge, Rajahmundry (for short ‘the Tribunal’). 2. The brief facts of the case are that on 23.06.1995 at about 4.00 PM when Kunche Nagaratnam and her husband along with the bundles of seedlings, were travelling on a lorry bearing No.AP 21 U 2511 with a fare of Rs.7/-, and when they reached near Yelisettivaripalem Centre, its driver drove it in a rash and negligent manner at high speed and dashed a car bearing No.USK 8171, due to which, the car went to road side and dashed the coconut tree and the lorry driver lost control over the vehicle and it fell down into the canal. Kunche Nagaratnam died on the spot. The claimants being husband, minor children filed the above said O.P. claiming compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-. Respondent Nos. 7 and 8 remained ex parte and the appellant-insurer filed counter denying the averments made in the petition. By the judgment impugned, the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.93,088/- to the claimants. Disputing the liability, the appellant-insurer filed the present appeal. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that as the deceased was travelling as an unauthorised passenger on the said lorry, the appellant is not liable to pay compensation to the claimants and that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is highly excessive. 4. Admittedly, the deceased and her husband boarded the lorry along with the bundles of seedlings. Further, no evidence was adduced and no document was marked on behalf of the appellant- insurer to prove that the deceased was an unauthorised passenger in a goods vehicle at the time of accident. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant cannot be accepted and as such, the appellant-insurer cannot be exonerated from its liability. 5. Hence, the civil miscellaneous appeal is dismissed. No costs. _____________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J Date:19.08.2010 sj