HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO M.A.C.M.A.No.2394 OF 2011 JUDGMENT: The appeal is filed by the appellant/2nd respondent against the order in O.P.No.185 of 1998 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum- VI Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Anantapur at Gooty, questioning the liability. 2. According to the case of the petitioner, on 28.10.1997 the petitioner was said to be travelling in the lorry bearing No.AP 02 T 8130 as a coolie and during the course of employment, due to rash and negligent driving of the driver, the lorry turned turtle, as a result of which, the petitioner received injuries. He claimed a compensation of Rs.80,000/-. The Insurance Company has disputed the claim of the petitioner as a labourer and contended that he was an unauthorised passenger. The lower Tribunal after considering the evidence, found that the incident was due to the fault of the driver of the lorry and granted a compensation of Rs.21,000/-. 3. The learned counsel for the appellant contends that the petitioner was only a gratuitous passenger and therefore, the insurance company is not liable to pay the compensation. The lower Tribunal after perusing the statements of witnesses, accepted that the petitioner and others were engaged as coolies to take cheeni fruits and therefore, they are labourers employed on the lorry. There is no other evidence to contradict the same. Even the First Information Report and the charge sheet show that the lorry was engaged for transport of the cheeni fruits probablising the contention that the petitioner was a labourer. I do not find any reason to interfere with the award of the lower Tribunal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________________ JUSTICE N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO Date:23.09.2011 INL