JUDGMENT : Ram Mohan Reddy, J. The insurer of the offending motor vehicle aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 21st March, 2011 in MVC 8026/2008 on the file of the XVIII Addl. Judge, Court of Small Causes, Member, MACT-IV, Bengaluru, (for short MACT) insofar as it related to fastening liability to pay compensation, has presented this appeal. 2. Claimant injured filed petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, for compensation of Rs. 6,00,000/- on the premise that on 22-08-2008 at about 3.00 p.m., while waiting for a bus at Jakkenahalli bus stop, the driver of the luggage auto bearing certificate of registration KA-06/B-4024 came from Shivanagere at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against him resulting in grievous injuries for which he was extended treatment in the hospital and spend huge money and aged 50, was an agriculturist carrying on milk vending and was earning Rs. 8,000/- per month. 3. That petition was opposed by filing statement of objections of appellant arraigned as respondent No. 2, inter alia denying the averments in the petition and advancing a plea that in MLC register extract dated 22-08-2008 at 3.00 p.m. near Jakkenahalli claimant slipped and fell while boarding a goods auto bearing certificate of registration KA-06/B-4024, and wound certificate issued by General Hospital, Madhugiri, records history of the case as fall from an auto rickshaw on 22-08-2008 at 3.00 p.m. It is further contended that driver of the offending vehicle did not possess a valid and effective driving licence on the date and time of accident. 4. In the premise of pleadings of the parties, MACT framed three issues, the first of which related to alleged actionable negligence on the driver of the autorickshaw while, second, to quantum of compensation and also from whom payable, while third as to what order. Before the MACT, claimant was examined as P.W. 1 and the record room keeper of the Government General Hospital as P.W.2 and the doctor as P.W.3 and marked documents Exs.P.1 to 13, while for the appellant/Manger (Legal) was examined as R.W. 1 and Investigation Officer as R. W.2 and marked two documents as Exs. R.1 and R.2. 5. Before the MACT, claimant was examined as P.W. 1 and the record room keeper of the Government General Hospital as P.W.2 and the doctor as P.W.3 and marked documents Exs.P.1 to 13, while for the appellant/Manger (Legal) was examined as R.W. 1 and Investigation Officer as R. W.2 and marked two documents as Exs. R.1 and R.2. 5. The MACT having regard to the material on record, evidence, both oral and documentary, returned a finding in the affirmative on issue No.1, partly in the affirmative on issue No. 2 determining compensation of Rs. 79,720/- payable both by insurer and insured jointly and severally and interest at 6% per annum, by the judgment and award impugned. 6. Learned counsel for appellant submits that the MACT was not justified in declining to accept as credible evidence the wound certificate, Ex.P.4 stating the claimant injured had fallen off from the autorickshaw while boarding it and rejection of testimony of R.Ws.1 and 2 to fasten the liability to pay compensation. Learned counsel hastens to add that P.W.1 claimant injured in cross-examination admitted to the fact hat after the accident and injuries when he went to the hospital, he stated the history of the injuries suffered by saying that he had fallen off from the autorickshaw while boarding it. 7. Per contra, learned counsel for claimant/injured seeks to sustain the judgment and award impugned as well merited, fully justified and not calling for interference. 8. P.W.1 in cross-examination says thus: (Vernacular matter omitted Ed. ) 9. The wound certificate issued by the Karnataka Health Services Department introduced in the evidence of P.W. 1 and marked as Ex. P. 4 records thus: "Fall from autorickshaw on 22-08-2008 at about 3.00 p.m." "Fall from auto (KA-06B-4024) on 22.08.2008 at about" 10. In the light of testimony of P.W. 1 admitting the fact that he had informed the doctor at both hospitals over history of the accident and having introduced in evidence, Ex.P.4, wound certificate which he placed reliance upon clearly indicates that the accident was due to fall from an autorickshaw. It is needless to state that the MACT was not justified in declining to accept as credible evidence the contents of Ex.P4 and admission in cross-examination of P.W. 1 over history of the accident. 11. It is needless to state that the MACT was not justified in declining to accept as credible evidence the contents of Ex.P4 and admission in cross-examination of P.W. 1 over history of the accident. 11. The facts and circumstances and evidence on record, discloses that the claimant injured suffered injuries while he fell down, from the autorickshaw in question and therefore, case putforth before MACT that he was standing at Jakkenahalli bus stop waiting for a bus and autorickshaw dashed against him, is unacceptable. In that view of the matter, MACT was not justified in record a finding that the cause of the accident was due to the autorickshaw in question having dashed the claimant. 12. Policy of insurance is a package policy marked as Ex.R.1 providing for indemnity of the insured i.e., owner against claim putforth by third parties and not for a claim putforth by a person who was in the autorickshaw, since a goods vehicle, not permitted to carry passengers. 13. For the aforesaid reasons, MACT was not justified in fastening liability on the appellant insurer to pay compensation. 14. In the result this appeal is allowed in part. Judgment and award impugned insofar as it related to recording a finding that the appellant insurer is liable to pay compensation is set-aside and in all other respects, remains unaltered. Amount in deposit is directed to be refunded to the Appellant.