( 1 ) THIS Civil miscellaneous appeal is filed against the order, dated 10-8-1995, passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (District Judge), Mahabubnagar, in O. P. No. 341 of 1991. ( 2 ) RESPONDENTS 1 to 4 filed the O. P. , alleging that on 27-4-1991, Sagge Nageshwara rao, the husband of the 1st respondent, son of respondents 2 and 3, and father of respondent No. 4, was proceeding on the bridge, over river Krishna at Beechupally along with others, from Pabbair to nandikotkur, and in the meanwhile, a lorry bearing No. ATK-8626, owned by respondent no. 5 and insured with the appellant, came in rash and negligent manner and hit him. Nageshawara Rao is said to have died on the spot. They claim compensation of rs. 1,00,000/-, alleging that he was aged 25 years, and was earning a sum of Rs. 50/- per day. ( 3 ) THE 5th respondent remained ex parte. Appellant alone contested the matter. It has put the respondents 1 to 4, to strict proof of the allegations made by them. On behalf of respondents 1 to 4, P. Ws. 1, and 2, were examined and Exs. A-1 to A-6 were marked. Neither oral nor documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of the appellant. On a consideration of the record before it, the tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 70,400/-, as compensation, with interest at 12% per annum. ( 4 ) LEARNED counsel for the appellant submits that there did not exist any insurance coverage for the vehicle and the Tribunal was not justified in fastening the liability upon the appellant. Respondents 2 and 3 died, during the pendency of the appeal. Respondents 1 and 4 are recorded as their legal representatives. Learned counsel for the respondents 1 and 4 submits that except making a bald statement, that it is for the respondents to prove the existence of the insurance policy, the appellant did not place any material before the Tribunal, and in that view of the matter, no exception can be taken for the order under appeal. ( 5 ) THE O. P. was filed claiming compensation for the death of the deceased-Nageshwara Rao, by specifically pleading that he was hit by lorry bearing no. ATK-8626, owned by the 5th respondent and insured with the appellant. The 5th respondent remained ex parte before the tribunal. ( 5 ) THE O. P. was filed claiming compensation for the death of the deceased-Nageshwara Rao, by specifically pleading that he was hit by lorry bearing no. ATK-8626, owned by the 5th respondent and insured with the appellant. The 5th respondent remained ex parte before the tribunal. It was only the appellant, that resisted the application. Except alleging that it is for the claimants to prove the existence of policy, the appellant did not take any specific plea as to the existence or non-existence of the policy. If at all the vehicle was not insured with it, the appellant ought to have examined a responsible officer and______placed necessary record before the Tribunal. The appellant came to be impleaded as respondent in the O. P. , on the basis of the information that emerged from the records relating to the vehicle, particularly the report of the Motor Vehicles Inspector. The report was marked as Ex. A-4. The appellant did not plead that the contents of Ex. A-4 do not represent the true facts. In that view of the matter, no exception can be taken to the order under appeal. Though the learned counsel for the appellant submits that the compensation as well as the rate of interest awarded is excessive, this Court is not at all convinced to accept the same. The deceased was aged 25 years, and viewed from that angle, it can be said that, in a way, the compensation itself was not adequate. ( 6 ) HENCE, the C. M. A. is dismissed. If the appellant is of the view that it has been fastened with a liability, even in the absence of an insurance coverage, it shall be open to it to proceed against the 5th respondent. In such an event, it shall be open to the 5th respondent to put forward her contentions, as to facts or on law, as are open to her. No costs.