M. Y. EQBAL, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal by the owner under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is directed against the judgment and award dated 20-7-2005 passed by VI Additional district Judge-cum-Motor Vehicle Accident claim Tribunal, Godda in Title Claim case No. 6 of 1998/18 of 2003, whereby compensation amount of Rs. 1,67,900/- has been awarded for the death oi the deceased rushtam Ali, who died in a Motor Vehicle accident and held that owner of the vehicle is liable to pay compensation but the amount of compensation shall be paid by the insurance Company and the same shall be recovered from the owner of the vehicle. ( 2 ) THE facts of the case lie in a narrow compass:-The widow, who is claimant filed application for the gront of compensation on account of death of her husband Rushtan ali in Motor Vehicle Accident caused by a truck bearing registration No. BRJ No. 4797. The claimant's case was that the deceased boarded the aforesaid truck at Bankamor for going to Hirapur. The truck was loaded with sand. On the way near a bridge the truck met with an accident, which caused death of the deceased. ( 3 ) BOTH the owner and the insurer of the truck appeared and filed written statement. In the written statement filed by the present appellant it was stated that deceased was not traveling on the truck, rather he was dashed by the truck on the road which resulted in his death. Hence, the Insurance company is liable to pay compensation. On the other hand, the case of the respondent insurance Company was that the truck was insured not for carrying passengers, rather it was a goods carrying vehicle. Since the deceased was travelling on the truck as a gratuitous passenger, Insurance Company cannot be held liable for payment of compensation. The Tribunal after considering the evidence both oral and documentary came to a finding that the deceased had boarded the truck for going to hirapur and on the way due to rash and negligent driving the truck loaded with sand titled down near a bridge, as a result of which deceased died. The Tribunal further held that since the truck in question is a goods carrying vehicle, the owner of the vehicle is liable to ay compensation ( 4 ) MR. The Tribunal further held that since the truck in question is a goods carrying vehicle, the owner of the vehicle is liable to ay compensation ( 4 ) MR. A. K. Lall, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant assailed the impugned judgment and award as being contrary to law and the facts and evidence on record. Learned Counsel submitted that the Tribunal has relied upon the evidence of the claimant's witnesses who had not seen the manner of accident. The Tribunal has failed to appreciate the evidence of the driver of the truck who deposed that deceased was not travelling as a gratuitous passenger. Learned Counsel further submitted that the tribunal has misdirected in law in directing the Insurance Company to realize the amount. ( 5 ) THE only question that falls for consideration is as to whether the deceased was traveling on the truck at the time of accident. The Tribunal has discussed the evidence of the witnesses examined by both the parties. The claimant who was examined as C. W. 5 has stated that her husband rushtam Ali was boarded on the truck loaded with sand at Bankamor for going to Hirapur in presence of her son Md. Ali and the said truck titled down near a pool as a result of which her husband fell down and died. C. W. 1 sayeed Ansari, co-villager of the claimant has also stated that deceased was boarded on the truck on the asking of the driver and thereafter the truck proceeded and the deceased died because of accident. C. W. 2 basrat Mian deposed that deceased was seen standing at Bankamor and from there he boarded on the truck loaded with sand. C. W. 4 Md. Ansari has also deposed that he got thedeceased boarded on the truck loaded with sand and came back to his home. Subsequently, he knew that the truck titled down as a result of which Rushtam Ali (deceased) died. The Tribunal has also considered the evidence of the driver of the truck who deposed that when the truck titled down, he jumped from the truck and heard sound that one man standing nearby side of the road was trapped inside the sane. However, in the cross-examination he has stated that he did not see the person by the side of the road at the time of accident. However, in the cross-examination he has stated that he did not see the person by the side of the road at the time of accident. The tribunal has also considered the statement made under Section 164, Cr. P. C. and other documents and came to the conclusion that deceased was travelling on the truck as a gratuitous passenger and died because of the accident, ( 6 ) WE fully agree with the findings recorded by the Tribunal, which is supported by the evidence. After considering the entire facts and statement made by the learned counsel, we do not find any reason to differ with the finding recorded by the Tribunal. ( 7 ) FOR the aforesaid reasons, this appeal has no merit and accordingly dismissed. - .