HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO M.A.C.M.A.No.1363 OF 2011 JUDGMENT: The appeal is filed by the petitioners-claimants against the orders in O.P.No.200 of 1997 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum- Additional District Judge, Anantapur, questioning the quantum of compensation and also the exoneration of the liability of the insurance company. 2. The petition was filed claiming compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- consequent on the death of the deceased Dasari Nageswaraiah in a motor accident. The 1st petitioner is the wife and petitioners 2 and 3 are the children and petitioner No.4 is the mother. The deceased is said to have gone as Hamali in the lorry on the date of incident and due to the rash and negligent driving of the same by the driver, he received injuries and died. He was said to be earning Rs.3,000/- per month. The 1st respondent remained ex parte and the 2nd respondent- insurance company filed a counter putting the petitioners to strict proof of the rashness and negligence of the driver of the vehicle and also the nature of the injuries and the expenditure incurred by the petitioners. The liability of the insurance company is also disputed. The lower Tribunal after considering the evidence on record found that the incident was occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the lorry by its driver. The lower Tribunal did not believe that the deceased was travelling as Hamali. The Tribunal found that the deceased was a gratuitous passenger and therefore, exonerated the insurance company from liability. The lower Tribunal however taken into consideration the income of the deceased as Rs.900/- per month and applied the multiplier correctly and granted the compensation. 3. The learned counsel for the appellants contends that the deceased was in the lorry as a Hamali for loading and unloading the slabs and the policy covers the risk of the 6 Hamalies travelling in the lorry and consequently the compensation should have been granted. But, however before the lower Tribunal the evidence of RW.1 shows the deceased travelled as a fair paid passenger and not as a Hamali or coolie. There were about 20 such passengers at the time of the incident and five persons died. His evidence clearly goes to show that the policy covers the risk of 6 Hamalies. The investigation done by the police also shows that the persons were travelling in the lorry. The petitioners have not adduced any evidence to show that they were engaged by the owner of the goods or the owner of the lorry Hamalies or a coolies for loading or unloading. Therefore, even if the policy is to cover six persons as Hamalies, in the absence of evidence of employment of the deceased as a Hamali and the material on record and the investigation showing that the deceased was traveller along with other persons, it cannot be said that the deceased was engaged by the owner of the lorry and the insurance company is liable to pay the compensation. There are no grounds to interfere with the finding of the lower Tribunal either regard to the quantum of the compensation or the liability. Accordingly, appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________________ N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO, J Date:20.08.2011 INL