G. NARENDAR, J.

1. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the respondents.

2. The parties are referred to by their nomenclature before the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation

3. Brief facts of the case are that on the fateful day of 14.08.2015 at about 3.30 p.m. while Basappa [deceased] was travelling in the offending vehicle- autorickshaw bearing reg. No.KA-37/5232 from Kanakagiri to Gangavathi along with the goods. At that time, the offending vehicle was driven by the Is' respondent and that when they were near Ankalimath, the vehicle was being driven at high speed and in rash and negligent manner, endangering human life, turned turtle and fell on to the road. As a result, Basappa along with the other occupants were thrown out of the vehicle and went under the vehicle. On account of which, he sustained grievous injuries to the head and other parts of the body. Immediately thereafter, he was shifted to the Government hospital at Kanakagiri and Gangavathi and thereafter, for higher treatment to the District hospital at Raichur. That the treatment went in vain and Basappa succumbed to the injuries sustained in the accident.

4. That the deceased Basappa was hale and healthy prior to the accident and he was doing business and agricultural work and managing 30 acres irrigated land and was earning Rs.8,000-00 p.m. He was contributing to the total income to maintain the big family. On account of his death, his family was deprived of the sole earning member and have suffered severe mental, physical and financial loss. In the circumstances, they claimed for compensation of Rs.9,25,000-00.

5. The claim came to be resisted by the 3rd respondent/insurer before the Court. The defence adopted by the 3rd respondent/insurer is as follows:

"It is patently false to allege that the offending vehicle Tom-Tom Goods vehicle No.KA-37/5232 was validly insured with this respondent on the date of accident. In fact it was not at ail insured with this respondent. Therefore, question of indemnifying the insured i.e., owner of the vehicle does not at all arise.

Without prejudice to the above it is submitted that, this respondent is not liable to indemnify the insured because the deceased was travelling in the offending vehicle as unauthorized passenger. The offending vehicle being a goods carriage, the insured is not permitted to carry any passengers in view of the position of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Asharani case - 2002(3) ACC 756 and Devareddy Kondareddy case -2003 (1) ACC 214 (SC).

Without prejudice to the above it is submitted that, if the Hon'ble Court comes to the conclusion that, this respondent is liable to pay the compensation with interest, then the interest may kindly be awarded @ 6% p.a. only from the date of award.

It is specifically denied by this respondent that, the deceased was along with goods Kanakagiri to Aralihalli cross. It is clear from the FIR Charge-sheet and other police records that clearly disclose that, he was not having any goods as materials. Deceased was travelling as passenger along with other passengers. Hence, this petition is not at all maintainable and it is fit to dismiss."

6. In sum and substance, the defence adopted was that no liability can be fastened on the insurer on account of the fact that the deceased was not a passenger accompanying the goods in the offending vehicle. The 1st and the 2nd respondent i.e., the driver and the owner respectively of the offending vehicle, have not submitted their objections.

7. The claimants are the legal heirs of the deceased who are his wife and children. The claimants got examined P.Ws.1 and 2 in support of their claim and have got marked 19 documents including the copy of the FIR., charge-sheet, copy of the witnesses list, copy of panchanama, copy of the M.V. report, copy of the postmortem report and the same are marked as Exs.P1 to 6 respectively. Exs.P7 to 12 are the revenue records relating to the lands held by the deceased. Exs.P13 is the