K. SREEDHAR RAO, J. ( 1 ) PETITIONERS in M. V. C. No. 316 of 1991 renumbered as m. V. C. No. 71 of 1995 are the wife and children of the deceased Shivakumar Setty, who died in a motor vehicle accident. The deceased is said to be a casual employee working in Backward Classes and Minority hostels as a helper in the kitchen. The income of deceased is said to be Rs. 1,300 per month, according to the petitioner. ( 2 ) TRIBUNAL by its order dated 5. 5. 2001, awarded compensation of Rs. 91,800 with interest at 6 per cent per annum from the date of petition till payment. In the first instance, the Tribunal directed the owner of the lorry and the insurer to pay the compensation. It appears that the petitioners filed an application for review. The Claims tribunal by its order dated 14. 11. 2002, allowed the application and directed the insurer to pay the compensation. The insurer is in appeal seeking avoidance of liability on the ground that the deceased is an unauthorised passenger in the goods vehicle. ( 3 ) INITIALLY, the petition averments disclose that the deceased had hired the lorry and was transporting the sand load for the construction of his house and he was also travelling with the said sand load. Thereafter, the petition came to be amended to contend that the deceased was working as a loader in the lorry. The petitioners have let in evidence to show that the deceased was a loader in the lorry. It is significant to note that the contents of the F. I. R. and the police investigation disclose that the lorry was transporting the sand load and the deceased was travelling in the lorry along with the sand load. The court is conscious of the fact that the minor children of the deceased are the petitioners before the court. The inquiry under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act is an inquisitorial inquiry and it is the duty of the court to find out the truth and to adjudicate the case justly and correctly. The amendment effected and the evidence let in by the first petitioner are totally inconsistent with the material available in the F. I. R. and the police records. The amendment effected and the evidence let in by the first petitioner are totally inconsistent with the material available in the F. I. R. and the police records. The first petitioner appears to have conducted the case without proper responsibility causing damage to the interests of the minor petitioners. On an overall consideration of facts and evidence, it is to be held that the deceased had hired the lorry and was travelling in the lorry along with the sand load. In that view, it is untenable to contend that the deceased was an unauthorised passenger. ( 4 ) THE accident has occurred prior to 14. 11. 1994. The law under section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act prior to 1994 amendment did not mandate compulsory coverage of the risk of the owner of the goods travelling in the lorry along with the goods. However, the Tariff Regulations permit the insurer to assume the risk under a special contract by collecting special premium towards the authorised passengers travelling in the goods vehicle along with the goods under the category of non-fare paying passenger. In this case, the insurer has not produced the policy nor let in any evidence to show that there is no legal liability under the policy. In that view, the insurer cannot avoid the liability. Accordingly, appeal is dismissed. Appeal dismissed.