JUDGMENT K. Ramanna, J. This appeal is by the insurer challenging the liability fixed on it to pay compensation of Rs.1,97 ,060/- by the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation, Sub-Division-1, Bellary, in WCAIF.197/99 on the ground that the 1st respondent being the wife of late Chandrachari died while traveling in goods vehicle stated to be a labourer under deceased 2nd respondent-Veerappa, but the documents produced by 1st respondent clearly show that late Chandrachari was working as a sampler in Kapataswamy Mines. Therefore, the death of Chandrachari while discharging duty under the employment of deceased 2nd respondent does not arise. Therefore, the appellant is not liable to indemnify the owner of the vehicle. Accordingly, the liability fixed on the appellant-insurer is labile to be set aside. 2. The case of the 1st respondent-claimant is that she is the legally wedded wife of late Chandrachari. Her deceased husband was workings as coolie under 2nd respondent. On that fateful day i.e., on 19-9-1997 he was traveling in a lorry bearing Registration No.ATN-871 as a labourer. Its driver Fakirappa drove the lorry in question in a rash and negligent manner consequently the lorry fell into a pit turning turtle and the said Chandrachari sustained severe injuries and later he succumbed to the injuries on the way to the hospital. The further contention of the 1st respondent is that her husband was working as a labourer and was being paid Rs.2,000/- p.m. and he was aged about 30 years. The Commissioner passed award fixing the liability on the insurer to indemnify the owner. Hence, this appeal. 3. It is argued by the learned Counsel for the appellant Sri Shivannegowda B.C. for Sri A.M. Venkatesh that the 1st respondent - claimant has not proved before the Commissioner whether Chandrachari was working under deceased original 2nd respondent- Veerappa the owner of the lorry as a loader and unloader. The documents produced by 1st respondent-claimant clearly indicate that late Chandrachari was working as a sampler who was traveling in the said lorry to go to Kapataswamy Mines. Wherefore, if he was traveling in the goods vehicle to go to Kapataswamy Mines then the question of considering that he was traveling as a loader and un-loader under deceased 2nd respondent does not arise. The liability fixed on the insurer is to be set aside and the appeal is to be allowed with costs. Wherefore, if he was traveling in the goods vehicle to go to Kapataswamy Mines then the question of considering that he was traveling as a loader and un-loader under deceased 2nd respondent does not arise. The liability fixed on the insurer is to be set aside and the appeal is to be allowed with costs. It is further contended that though the FIR is not a substantial piece of evidence but the FIR should not be accepted for one purpose to prove the accident and at the same time it should not be rejected for the purpose that he was working as a sampler in Kapataswamy Mines. When the 1st respondent-claimant herself has not placed any materials before the Commissioner to show that late Chandrachari was working under deceased 2nd respondent-Veerappa as a loader and unloader, the deceased 2nd respondent was placed ex-parte before the Commissioner of Workmen’s Compensation. It is for the 1st respondent-claimant to prove that deceased Chandrachary was working under deceased 2nd respondent-Veerappa and he was paying salary of Rs.2,000/- to him for loading and un-loading. Though the appellant has not cross-examined the 1st respondent-claimant on this point but it is not a ground to disbelieve the contention of the appellant. The trial Court is not right in coming to the conclusion that the appellant being the insurer is liable to pay compensation. Hence, this appeal is to be allowed. 4. On the other hand, Smt. Y. Malathi Reddy, learned Counsel for 1st respondent submitted that the contents of FIR and the evidence ofP.W.1 Le., 1st respondent-claimant clearly indicates that her husband late Chandrachari was working as a Coolie in the said lorry. She was of unsound mind and the owner and driver of the lorry was placed ex-parte before the Commissioner and she was unable to prove that her husband was working as a coolie and he was getting salary of Rs.2,000/- p.m. The FIR produced by her clearly indicates that deceased Chandrachari was travelling in the said lorry as a coolie. The vehicle was duly insured with the appellant, risk of the coolies or unpaid passengers was covered, therefore the appellant is liable to indemnify the owner of the vehicle. Hence, appeal is not maintainable and the same is liable to be dismissed. The vehicle was duly insured with the appellant, risk of the coolies or unpaid passengers was covered, therefore the appellant is liable to indemnify the owner of the vehicle. Hence, appeal is not maintainable and the same is liable to be dismissed. Alternatively she submitted that in case this Court comes to the conclusion that deceased Chandrachari was traveling in the lorry to go to Kapataswamy Mines as a sampler then liberty is to be given to the 1st respondent-claimant to file appropriate claim petition under the MVC Act claiming compensation. 5. Having heard the Counsel for both the parties sand after examining the materials placed on record, the question that arises for consideration 18 whether the deceased Chandrachari who died in the Motor Vehicle Accident was traveling in the said lorry as a coolie or as sampler to go to Kapataswamy Mines? 6. The claim petition filed by 1st respondent-claimant indicates that her husband was a coolie in the lorry and deceased 2nd respondent was it owner. The vehicle was duly insured with the appellant, risk of the coolie or unpaid passenger was covered. The appellant insurer is the only contesting respondent before the Commissioner of Workmen’s Compensation, Bellary. The 2nd respondent owner of the vehicle remained ex-parte before the Commissioner. The 1st respondent who examined herself as P.W.1 deposed that her husband was working as a coolie under respondent No.2. On that day he was traveling in the said lorry to go to Kapataswamy Mines. Neither the 1st respondent nor her family members filed complaint before the jurisdictional police. Some cleaner has filed a complaint wherein he has stated that he was going for Kapataswamy Mines as a sampler. The appellant neither-examined the cleaner nor any other injured person to prove that late Chandrachary was not working as a coolie and that he was working as a sampler in Kapataswamy Mines. Except 1st respondent herein no other independent witness was examined. The deceased 2nd respondent being the owner of the vehicle has neither appeared before the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation nor filed his written statement admitting that deceased Chandrachary was a coolie under him. Therefore, the 1st respondent has to prove that her husband was working as a coolie under deceased 2nd respondent. The deceased 2nd respondent being the owner of the vehicle has neither appeared before the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation nor filed his written statement admitting that deceased Chandrachary was a coolie under him. Therefore, the 1st respondent has to prove that her husband was working as a coolie under deceased 2nd respondent. The 1st respondent in her cross-examination admitted that deceased Chandrachary was traveling in the said lorry, he was a sampler and in after to go to Kapataswamy Mines he was traveling in the said lorry. The cleaner Subbaiah sustained simple injuries whereas Chandrachary sustained fatal injury. Of course Chandrachary died on the way to the hospital. In the FIR Ex.P-2 it is clearly mentioned that late Chandrachary was working as a sampler in Kapataswamy Mines but not as a labourer under 2nd respondent. The 1st respondent has not made any attempt to summon deceased Veerappa - 2nd respondent during his life time or his LRs before the Court to prove that Chandrachary was working as a coolie under him. The burden of proof lies on the claimant who knocked the doors of the Court seeking grant of compensation. First of all it is the duty of the claimant to prove that the person died or was injured during the course of employment in a Motor Vehicle Accident or some other accident. Merely because the appellant has not cross-examined P.W.1 does not mean that the contents of the pleadings has been proved successfully. Of course the death of Chandrachary has not been disputed. To prove the same the 1st respondent has produced Ex.P-6 Post Mortem report. In view of the law lay down by this Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Govindamma and Others reported in 2006 ACJ 563 , wherein it has been held that: “Documents cannot for one purpose be accepted and negated for another, unless the claimants had established that contents of the FIR were partly true.” The learned Counsel for the appellant also relied on another decision of the Apex Court in the case of Oriental Insurance Company Limited Vs. Premlata Shukla and Others, reported in 2007 ACJ 1928 , wherein it has been held that: “Once a part of it is relied upon by both the parties, the learned Tribunal cannot be said to have committed any illegality in relying upon the other part, irrespective of the contents of the document been proved or not. If the contents have been proved, the question of reliance thereupon only upon a part thereof and not upon the rest, on the technical ground that the same had not been proved.” In the instant case, the 1st respondent-claimant herself took specific contention that her husband was working as a coolie. She is a woman of unsound mind and she was unable to secure the records or salary certificate from the employer is not a ground to hold that late Chandrachary was traveling in a goods vehicle as a coolie. The law laid down by the Apex Court as well as this Court clearly shows that the Commissioner has wrongly come to the conclusion in believing the oral and documentary evidence of P.W.1 i.e., Exs.P-1 and P-2 Le;, FIR and charge sheet. As Chandrachary was not working under deceased 2nd respondent- Veerappa as a coolie the claim petition ought to have been filed before the Motor Vehicle Claims Tribunal under Sections 166 or 163 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, that her husband died while traveling in the goods vehicle. The insurance policy covers the risk of unpaid passengers or paid Passengers. Therefore, the finding recorded by the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compen-sation in allowing the claim petition filed by the Respondent No.1 and fixing the liability on the appellant-insurer to Indemnify the owner of the vehicle is totally incorrect. Considering the factual and legal points urged by both the parties the appeal is to be allowed. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The Judgement and Award passed by the Commissioner for Workmen’s Compen-sation, Bellary directing the appellant to indemnify deceased 2nd respondent owner of the vehicle is hereby set aside. Consequently, the claim petition filed by the 1st respondent is rejected. However, she is at liberty to file claim petition before the competent Tribunal, within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order. The amount deposited by the insurer shall be refunded.