Judgment : K. Govindarajulu, J., All these four appeals are in connection with one accident, so by a common order they are taken up for consideration. 2. Advocate for the respondent No. 2 in the course of his argument contend that each of the claimants are passenger in a trailor/tractor. Evidence placed in the form of a complaint disclose that the persons were traveling in that particular tractor/trailor to ascertain election results, so these persons become gratutitous passengers is proved. Policy issued is an Act Policy, so pray for exonerating the company. The submission of the Advocate for the respondent No.2 is rebutted by the Advocate for the claimant contending that the Complaint is based not on the information of the injured. If the information is by the injured, it has some credence, any other evidence will be secondary evidence and cannot form part of Section 60 of the Evidence Act. To substantiate the case of the claimants, evidence is adduced. In rebuttal evidence, case put forth by the claimants, is suggested to RW-1, he pleads ignorance. In such a situation company cannot seek for exonerating it from liability. 3. Perused the policy. Basic premium is 507, next column is less discount 317, driver coverage 5% total calculated, collected is Rs. 839/-. But if we read 317 less discount, premium should have been 520. This probablise that there is no application of mind by the company, which has issued the policy. In addition to it, the next column is for passenger vehicle only. 4. RW-1 examined before the Commissioner do not answer any of these particulars as why, when there a column for less, adding is done, why Rs. 317/-collected remains unsubstantiated, so Rs. 317/- collected has to be read as adding for passenger vehicle. So, the submissions that the vehicle in question do not cover inmates of the trailor is not apt. Even in a tractor policy, the workman are covered generally. Best person having entered the witness-box, the answer for better appreciation on the aspect of the accident found from the evidence of respondent No. 1 is extracted, it reads: “Malayalam” (emphasis supplied) In this situation, material on which reliance is placed by the learned Advocate for the insurance company is not evidence, so RW-1 (Shri Ashok Vamana Rao Deshpande)’s evidence is a hearsay evidence, so rejected. No substantial question of law would arise for consideration. No substantial question of law would arise for consideration. Submission of the Advocate for the insurance company is rejected. Appeal dismissed. Amount in deposit to be transferred to the Commissioner for payment.