Judgment Dr. A.K. Rath, J. Assailing the judgment and order dated 7.9.1998 passed by the learned Single Judge in M.A. No.46 of 1996, this appeal has been filed under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent. 2. Respondent no.1 as the claimant laid an application for compensation before the 2nd M.A.C.T. (S.D.), Berhampur claiming compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-from the owner and insurer of the Trekker. 3. Case of the claimant is that on 3.3.1992 at about 2.30 P.M. while he was moving on the P.W.D. road at village Jhadabhumi, a trekker bearing registration No.ORL 1514 driven in a rash and negligent manner dashed against him, as a result of which he sustained injury. 4. Pursuant to issuance of notice, owner of the vehicle entered appearance and denied the assertions made in the claim application. The case of the owner is that as the rear wheel of the trekker was damaged, the same was capsized and the accident took place. He further stated that the vehicle in question was under valid insurance coverage. 5. The appellant-Insurance Company also filed written statement denying the liability. 6. Stemming on the pleadings, learned Tribunal struck four issues. To substantiate the case, the claimant examined himself as P.W.1 and on his behalf ten documents were exhibited. The insurer exhibited two documents. On an analysis of the evidence on record, both oral and documentary, and the pleadings of the parties, learned Tribunal came to hold that due to rash and negligent driving of the offending trekker, the accident took place and directed the Insurer to pay a sum of Rs.40,000/-to the claimant with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of application, i.e. 3.9.1992 till realization. 7. The appellant unsuccessfully challenged the said award in M.A. No.46 of 1996. Hence this appeal. 8. Mr. S.D. Das, learned Senior Advocate for the appellant-Insurance Company, argues with vehemence that the claimant was travelling in the vehicle as a passenger. To buttress his submission, Mr. Das took us through the award as well as the evidence on record. 9. We have gone through the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge. In paragraph 9 of the judgment, the issue in question has been elaborately dealt with. 10. The specific case of the claimant is that while he was walking on the P.W.D road, he was knocked down by the offending vehicle. 9. We have gone through the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge. In paragraph 9 of the judgment, the issue in question has been elaborately dealt with. 10. The specific case of the claimant is that while he was walking on the P.W.D road, he was knocked down by the offending vehicle. The same has not been specifically denied or disputed either by the owner or insurer in their respective written statements. However, P.W.1-claimant has stated that on the date of accident while he was going to Bellaguntha from his village on the left side of the road by walking, the offending vehicle dashed against him, as a result of which he sustained injuries. Though a suggestion was put to him that he was injured when he was walking in the middle of the road, the same was denied by him. On being cross-examined by the insurer, he denied to have made any statement to the police that he was travelling in the trekker. 11. In view of the clinching evidence on record, we are of consensus ad idem that the appeal deserves dismissal. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. The insurer is directed to deposit the entire awarded amount with interest within two months from the date of the judgment before the Tribunal. No cost.