( 1 ) THE appeals in M. F. A. Nos. 7506 and 7507 of 2002 are by the insurance Company and the appeals in M. F. A. Nos. 748 and 749 of 2003 are by the claimants before the Commissioner for Workmen's compensation, Raichur ('the Commissioner for short ). ( 2 ) IT is seen that the proceedings before the Commissioner were not contested and in this light, the Commissioner has accepted the statements of the claimants in allowing the petitions and awarding compensation. ( 3 ) MR. O. Mahesh learned Counsel appearing for appellant-Insurance company draws my attention to the First Information Report (the 'fir' for short), which is placed on record by the claimants themselves, wherein it is stated that at the time of accident there were about 40 people travelling in the lorry as passengers and if this submission is to be accepted the claimants are not entitled for any compensation, since there is no statutory liability on the owner of a vehicle to get his vehicle insured for any passenger travelling in a goods vehicle and hence the insurers would not be liable to respect of the same. This proposition has been affirmed by the Apex Court in the case of National Insurance company Limited v Bommithi Subbhayamma and Others. The commissioner has completely overlooked the statement in the FIR in proceeding to accept the claim for compensation. Even if the matter was not contested, the Commissioner is not in a position to grant compensation for the asking. He would necessarily have to examine the genuineness of a claim before him. In the instant case, the FIR disclosing there were passengers travelling in a goods carrying vehicle, was a circumstance which the Commissioner should have viewed more closely in order to ascertain whether or not the passengers were loaders employed by the owner. The other circumstance that the owner is a resident of Andhra Pradesh and that the deceased were from Raichur district also points to a possibly false claim before the Commissioner. In the face of material available on record and the Commissioner having failed to address the same, would raise a substantial question of law for consideration. ( 4 ) THE learned Counsel for claimant-appellants in M. F. A. Nos. In the face of material available on record and the Commissioner having failed to address the same, would raise a substantial question of law for consideration. ( 4 ) THE learned Counsel for claimant-appellants in M. F. A. Nos. 748 and 749 of 2003 contends that the Commissioner has passed a just and fair award and since there was no contest by any of the respondents, the commissioner was justified in allowing the claim. The FIR indicating that there were passengers heing carried 011 the vehicle was not a document which was relevant for the purpose of considering the claim for compensation. It might at best have been produced though it has been produced by the claimants to prove the fact of accident and would not necessarily indicate the connection insofar as the deceased were concerned with the vehicle or their relationship with the employer and relies upon the judgment in National Insurance Company Limited, hubli v Moses Dindannavar and Others. This contention is taken note of to be rejected since the judgment relied upon by the learned Counsel for the appellants is on a different factual situation and the law declared in that particular case that the claimant was not bound by the contents of the FIR, would not squarely apply to the present case when the FIR has been produced by the claimants themselves and if the FIR is to be ignored or negated, it is inexplicable that it would necessarily follow that the accident itself would not be proved. The FIR cannot, for one purpose be accepted and negated for another, unless the claimants had established that the contents of the FIR were partly true. ( 5 ) IN the result, the following order.- the appeals in M. F. A. Nos. 7506 and 7507 of 2002 are allowed and the award of the Commissioner which is in challenge in each of these cases is set aside and further, in view of these appeals being allowed, the appeals in M. F. A. Nos. 748 and 749 of 2003 would not survive for consideration and are accordingly disposed of. The amount in deposit to be refunded the appellant-Insurance company. --- *** --- .