Ram Mohan Reddy, J

Though this appeal and cross-objection are listed for admission, with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties, they are finally heard and are disposed of by this common order.

2. The insurer of the offending vehicle, aggrieved by the fastening of the liability to pay the compensation by the judgment and award dated 30-07-2005 in M.V.C. No. 1385/2002 of the III Addl. Civil judge (Sr. Dn) & Addl. MACT, Belgaum (for short ‘MACT’), has preferred this appeal while the cross-objection is preferred by the claimant-injured, the 1st respondent for enhancement of compensation.

3. The challenge to the impugned judgment and award by the insurer of the offending motor vehicle is grounded on non-liaility to pay the compensation as the claimant-injured is gratuitous passenger travelling in a goods carriage, while the cross objection is over the quantuum of compensation as inadequate. In that view of the matter, appplying the law laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of United India Insurance Co. Vs. Balasubramanyam, ILR 1990 Kar 483, holding that the provisions of Order 41 Rule 22 when read in conjunction with Section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act, (‘Act for short), the combined effect of which in an appeal presented by the insurer in which the only ground of challenge is with reference to the extent of liability of the Insurance company, the cross-objector cannot be permitted to contest the quantum of compensation or the findings recorded on any other issue, the corss-objection in the instant case is not maintainable and deserves to be rejected.

4. The grievance of the appellant as aired by its learned Counsel is that the claimant-injured having travelled in a goods carriage along with the driver, not as the owner of the goods, but as a gratuitous passenger, the decision of the Apex Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd Vs. Vedwati & Ors, ILR 1990 Kar 483, that no liability could be clamped on the insurer of the offending vehicle in the circumstances is applicable. Learned Counsel highlights the fact that the claimant-injured int he claim statement, against Column No.5, except for stating that he was a coolie, did not furnish the employemnt particulars nor state that he was employed by the owner of the vehicle and that the claimant-injured in his statement as recorded by the police authoirites, while in the hospital, in the course of investigation into the crime, disclosed that he was travelling in the goods carrriage as a gratuitous passenger, in additon to the statment of the complainant that the claimant-injured boarded the goods carriage sat in the clearner’s seat as a gratuitous passenger. According to the Lerned Counsel, these facts having not been considered by the MACT, has occasioned denial of justice.

5. Per contra, the learned Counsel for the respondent-claimant, seeks to sustain the finding of the MACT fastening liability on the appellant, as being well merited, and not calling for interference.

6. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties, examined the impugned judgment and award, the pleadings, certified copies of the depositions and documents exhibited before the MACT and produced by the learned Counsel for the appellant, what emanates is the fact that in the claim statment filed by the claimant-injured, although he claimed to be a coolie by avocation, did not furnish the relevant material partiulars of emplyment, much less employed under the insured. Before the MACT the appellant produced three documents marked as Exhibits R-1 to R-3 namely the statement ofthe claimant-injured, the complaint and a copy of the insurance policy, respectively. The statement of the claimant discloses that while in hospital, the police authorities in the process of investigation into the crime, recorded the claimant’s statement wherein he categorically stated that he was travelling as a gratuitous passenger. So also, the written complaint Exhibit R-2, lodged by one Mallesha