THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO C.M.A. No. 932 of 2011 JUDGMENT: The appeal is filed by the insurance company against the order dated 13.04.2004 in W.C. Case No.158 of 2003 (F) on the file of the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation and Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Nalgonda, questioning its liability. The claim was made consequent on the death of the deceased N.Srinivas, who was said to be the driver of the ambassador car bearing No.AP-09J 6426, on 28.08.2002 while he was proceeding to Anantapur from Hyderabad as the vehicle was said to be belonged to the 2nd respondent herein. A lorry bearing No.KA-03A 5200 said to have come in the opposite direction and dashed against the car. The claim was made against the owner of the car and its insurance company. The insurance company has pleaded that there was a violation of the conditions of the policy and, therefore, it is not liable. On a consideration of the material on record, the lower Tribunal has granted a compensation of Rs.2,84,448/-. The learned counsel for the appellant strongly contends that as per the conditions of the policy, it shall not be given for hire or reward and in this case the evidence of P.W.1, the wife of the deceased, clearly goes to show that the vehicle was on hire. The above said part of the statement was not considered by the lower Tribunal on the ground that P.W.1 is an illiterate lady and evidently, she does not have any knowledge as to the purpose of the use of the vehicle. The reasoning given by the lower Tribunal appears to be correct to say that the vehicle was taken by the husband of the claimant and naturally she might not be knowing as to from what point it was taken and if at all it was to be taken on hire, it may not be known to the claimant. On such statement of the claimant, it is very difficult to deny the compensation to her. There is also no other material on record to support the contention of the appellant, no investigation was also done to show that in fact the vehicle was given on hire or that any people were being carried the vehicle on hire. In the absence of such material, the statement of P.W.1, who, evidently, has no personal knowledge about the facts, cannot be taken into consideration. Therefore, in view of the above circumstances, I do not find any ground to interfere with the order of the lower Tribunal. But, however, the appellant is at liberty to recover the amount from the owner of the vehicle. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. No costs. ________________________ N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO, J 08-09-2011 MR THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO C.M.A. No. 932 of 2011 DATE: 08-09-2011 MR