JUDGMENT 1. In this appeal the appellant-insurance company has challenged the judgment and award passed by 1st Additional District Judge-cum-Motor vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal, Gumla by which the Court below has awarded a sum of Rs. 30,000/- for the injury sustained by the claimant under the Motor Vehicle Accident. 2. The case of the claimant was that he was traveling on a truck as a labourer for loading and unloading of Boxite. On the way the truck met with an accident and claimant sustained injuries. The owner of the vehicle filed written statement supporting the case of the claimant. 3. The Tribunal after findings the evidence adduced by claimant came to the conclusion that the claimant was traveling as labourer in the said vehicle which met with an accident. Considering the nature of the injury sustained by claimant, a sum of Rs. 30,000/- has been awarded. 4. Mr. Alok Lal, learned Counsel appearing for the Insurance Company assailed the impugned order on the ground, utter alia, that the claimant was a gratuitous passenger and not a labourer covered under the policy and, therefore, the Insurance Company has no liability. From perusal of the impugned Judgment It does not appear that Insurance Company led evidence to prove that the claimant was traveling as a passenger and not as a labourer. No evidence was adduced by the appellant-Insurance Company to substantiate its stand that the claimant was traveling as a passenger. In absence of any such evidence, we are unable to reverse the findings recorded by the Tribunal on the, issue as to whether the claimant was traveling as a passenger or as a labourer particularly when the owner of the vehicle supported the case of the claimant. 5. Mr. Alok Lal put reliance in the case of National Insurance Co. Limited v. Bommithi Subbhayamma and Ors. 2005 (2) TAC 1 (SC) and in the case of M.V. Jaya Devappa and Ors. v. Oriental Fire and General Insurance Co. Ltd. and Ors. 2005 (2) TAC 5 (SC). 6. There is no dispute at all with regard to law settled by the Supreme Court that in a goods parrying vehicle if a person travels as, a passenger and dies or sustains injuries in case of accident, then the Insurance Company shall have no liability at all. Ltd. and Ors. 2005 (2) TAC 5 (SC). 6. There is no dispute at all with regard to law settled by the Supreme Court that in a goods parrying vehicle if a person travels as, a passenger and dies or sustains injuries in case of accident, then the Insurance Company shall have no liability at all. In the instant case there is no finding of the tribunal nor the appellant has proved that the claimant was traveling as a passenger. 7. In our view, therefore, decision referred by, the learned Counsel for the Insurance Company will be of no, help at all to the appellant. 8. However, on the question of payment of interest, we are of the view that in the facts and circumstances of the case the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal shall carry interest @ 6% per annum. 9. In the aforesaid circumstance, this appeal is disposed of with the only modification that the amount of compensation shall be @ 6% per annum.