JUDGMENT : G. NARENDAR, J. 1. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the respondents. 2. The parties are referred to by their nomenclature before the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation 3. Brief facts of the case are that on the fateful day of 14.08.2015 at about 3.30 p.m. while Basappa [deceased] was travelling in the offending vehicle- autorickshaw bearing reg. No.KA-37/5232 from Kanakagiri to Gangavathi along with the goods. At that time, the offending vehicle was driven by the Is' respondent and that when they were near Ankalimath, the vehicle was being driven at high speed and in rash and negligent manner, endangering human life, turned turtle and fell on to the road. As a result, Basappa along with the other occupants were thrown out of the vehicle and went under the vehicle. On account of which, he sustained grievous injuries to the head and other parts of the body. Immediately thereafter, he was shifted to the Government hospital at Kanakagiri and Gangavathi and thereafter, for higher treatment to the District hospital at Raichur. That the treatment went in vain and Basappa succumbed to the injuries sustained in the accident. 4. That the deceased Basappa was hale and healthy prior to the accident and he was doing business and agricultural work and managing 30 acres irrigated land and was earning Rs.8,000-00 p.m. He was contributing to the total income to maintain the big family. On account of his death, his family was deprived of the sole earning member and have suffered severe mental, physical and financial loss. In the circumstances, they claimed for compensation of Rs.9,25,000-00. 5. The claim came to be resisted by the 3rd respondent/insurer before the Court. The defence adopted by the 3rd respondent/insurer is as follows: "It is patently false to allege that the offending vehicle Tom-Tom Goods vehicle No.KA-37/5232 was validly insured with this respondent on the date of accident. In fact it was not at ail insured with this respondent. Therefore, question of indemnifying the insured i.e., owner of the vehicle does not at all arise. Without prejudice to the above it is submitted that, this respondent is not liable to indemnify the insured because the deceased was travelling in the offending vehicle as unauthorized passenger. In fact it was not at ail insured with this respondent. Therefore, question of indemnifying the insured i.e., owner of the vehicle does not at all arise. Without prejudice to the above it is submitted that, this respondent is not liable to indemnify the insured because the deceased was travelling in the offending vehicle as unauthorized passenger. The offending vehicle being a goods carriage, the insured is not permitted to carry any passengers in view of the position of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Asharani case - 2002(3) ACC 756 and Devareddy Kondareddy case -2003 (1) ACC 214 (SC). Without prejudice to the above it is submitted that, if the Hon'ble Court comes to the conclusion that, this respondent is liable to pay the compensation with interest, then the interest may kindly be awarded @ 6% p.a. only from the date of award. It is specifically denied by this respondent that, the deceased was along with goods Kanakagiri to Aralihalli cross. It is clear from the FIR Charge-sheet and other police records that clearly disclose that, he was not having any goods as materials. Deceased was travelling as passenger along with other passengers. Hence, this petition is not at all maintainable and it is fit to dismiss." 6. In sum and substance, the defence adopted was that no liability can be fastened on the insurer on account of the fact that the deceased was not a passenger accompanying the goods in the offending vehicle. The 1st and the 2nd respondent i.e., the driver and the owner respectively of the offending vehicle, have not submitted their objections. 7. The claimants are the legal heirs of the deceased who are his wife and children. The claimants got examined P.Ws.1 and 2 in support of their claim and have got marked 19 documents including the copy of the FIR., charge-sheet, copy of the witnesses list, copy of panchanama, copy of the M.V. report, copy of the postmortem report and the same are marked as Exs.P1 to 6 respectively. Exs.P7 to 12 are the revenue records relating to the lands held by the deceased. Exs.P7 to 12 are the revenue records relating to the lands held by the deceased. Exs.P13 is the original bills evidencing the oil seeds transaction, Ex.P14 is the xerox copy of the insurance cover notice issued by the insurer, Ex.P15 is the xerox copy of the driving license of the 1st respondent and Ex.P16 is the xerox copy of the registration certificate. 8. On behalf of the appellant/insurer, R.W.1 is examined. R.W.1 is claimed to be the Panel Investigator of the appellant. In his evidence, no documents have been marked in support of their case. It is relevant to cull out the deposition on oath of the respondent's witness, which reads as follows: "That the offending vehicle No. KA-37/5232 is a goods carriage arid it was validly insured with our Insurance co. on the date of accident. According to the terms and conditions of the insurance policy the insured (owner) is not supposed to carry any unauthorized passenger to travel. In this case the deceased was travelling as un-authorised passenger at the time of accident in the offending vehicle. This is very much evident from the FIR and complainant itself. I have conducted investigation and the report of the investigator also produced herewith. That the deceased was not travelling in the offending vehicle along with goods at the time of accident. Hence, the insurance co. is not at aliable to pay any compensation. I further state on oath that, the owner of the vehicle has deliberately and intentionally entrusted the offending vehicle to the driver respondent No. 1 who was not having valid and effective driving licence to drive it at the time of accident. This is clear violation of terms of the policy. On this ground also insurance co. is not at all liable to pay any compensation." The above extract is the entirety of the defence on behalf of the 3rd respondent/insurer. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the deceased was a fare paying passenger rather than unauthorized passenger travelling in the goods vehicle and in the light of the said facts, the insurer is absolved of any liability to compensate the owner of the vehicle in the event of the Court fastening the liability on the owner. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the deceased was a fare paying passenger rather than unauthorized passenger travelling in the goods vehicle and in the light of the said facts, the insurer is absolved of any liability to compensate the owner of the vehicle in the event of the Court fastening the liability on the owner. As the carrying of the passengers, gratuitous or otherwise, in a goods autorickshaw is a complete breach of terms and conditions of the policy and carrying of the passengers being in violation of the policy conditions, the insurer/appellant stands absolved of the liability under the terms and conditions of the contract. 10. Learned counsel for the appellant would also vehemently submit that the claimant has not placed on record any documentary evidence to demonstrate that the deceased was indeed carrying goods which was being transported by the offending vehicle. He would submit that in the absence of such evidence, the conclusion arrived at by the Tribunal is perverse and liable to be set aside. 11. During the course of argument and on perusal of the documents filed in support of exhibits marked on behalf of the claimant, it is found that the registration mark of the offending vehicle as mentioned in the FIR and charge sheet did not tally with the vehicle identified in the claim petition. At this juncture, the learned counsel for the appellant would contend that, there is a bounden duty on the Court to scrutinize the documents marked in support of the claim. There can be no dispute regarding the same. He would further contend that, in the light of the Tribunal having relied upon an irrelevant material, the judgment and award stands vitiated. He would submit that the matter required to be remanded and it is a fit case for remand for examination of the documentary evidence. He would submit that Exs.P1 arid P2, which have been relied upon by the Court to conclude about the factum of accident clearly point out the involvement of a different vehicle. Hence, the Conclusion regarding the factum of accident is erroneous and contrary to evidence. Hence, the same warrants interference at the hands of this Court. 12. He would submit that Exs.P1 arid P2, which have been relied upon by the Court to conclude about the factum of accident clearly point out the involvement of a different vehicle. Hence, the Conclusion regarding the factum of accident is erroneous and contrary to evidence. Hence, the same warrants interference at the hands of this Court. 12. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents submits that the factum of accident has not been disputed by the appellant before the Tribunal nor has any evidence in this regard been tendered before the Tribunal. He would draw the attention of this Court to Exs.P17-insurance policy, Ex.P18-copy of the driving licence, more particularly Ex.P19-R.C.book. He would also draw the attention of this Court to the claim petition wherein it has been specifically averred that the registration mark of the offending vehicle was KA-37/5232, whereas the registration number mentioned in the FIR and in the final report is KA-37/T-236. Fie would further submit that the insurer, i.e., the present appellant had not disputed the identity of the vehicle either in the statement of objections or in the evidence adduced on behalf of it by R.W.1. In the above facts and circumstances, the issue falls for consideration before this Court is: (i) Whether the Tribunal erred in relying upon Exs.P1 and P2 to arrive at a finding regarding the factum of accident? (ii) Whether the production and marking of Exs. P1 and P2 has vitiated the trial and the conclusion arrived at by the Tribunal? 13. Both the issues are required to be addressed together, as the common facts and material would be relied upon to arrive at a conclusion by the Tribunal. Hence, both the issues are taken up for consideration jointly. 14. It is seen that the Tribunal has formulated three issues and the first issue is in respect of proof, as to whether the death occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of the Auto bearing No. KA-37/5232. The Tribunal primarily relied upon the oral evidence of P.W.1 who is the claimant and P.W.2 who is the eye-witness to the accident to arrive at the conclusion that the accident had occurred on account of rash and negligent driving by the driver of the Auto bearing No. KA-37/5232. The Tribunal primarily relied upon the oral evidence of P.W.1 who is the claimant and P.W.2 who is the eye-witness to the accident to arrive at the conclusion that the accident had occurred on account of rash and negligent driving by the driver of the Auto bearing No. KA-37/5232. It has also recorded chat it is inclined to believe the version and testimony of the deponents, as nothing has been elicited in their cross-examination to discard or doubt the same. While so arriving at the finding, it has also observed thus: "Even otherwise, the above evidence is supported by the copy of the FIR as per Ex.P1, which reveals that the case has been registered against the respondent No. 1 on account of his rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle. Ex.P2 is the copy of the charge sheet, which reveals that during the course of investigation, the concerned police have confirmed the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by the respondent No. 1." 15. That apart, it is seen that the number mentioned in Exs.P1 and P2 bears the alphabet 'T', which normally refers to a temporary registration. It is also a possibility that the vehicle on the dote of accident had been using its temporary registration mark and had not received the registered mark. Be it as it may, i.e., the said issue which ought to have been proved by the appellant, if it intended to dispute the identity of the vehicle. As can be seen and extracted above, neither in the objection statement or in the deposition, the identity of the vehicle has been disputed. The core of the defence has been that the deceased was a fare paying passenger and that he was not accompanying any goods. The Tribunal after appreciating the facts has concluded in favour of the claimants that the deceased was in fact carrying agricultural goods. It also disbelieved the non-mentioning of the same in the FIR. It has thus recorded a finding that the deceased was accompanying the goods and he was not a fare paying passenger. 16. Now coming to the issue as to whether the reliance on Exs.P1 and P2 is sufficient enough to raise a question mark on the legality of the judgment and award rendered by the Tribunal. In the considered opinion of this Court, the answer is in the negative. 16. Now coming to the issue as to whether the reliance on Exs.P1 and P2 is sufficient enough to raise a question mark on the legality of the judgment and award rendered by the Tribunal. In the considered opinion of this Court, the answer is in the negative. Firstly, it is seen that the appellant has not disputed the identity of the vehicle. Secondly, it is not canvassed before this Court that the vehicle as described in Ex.P1 and the vehicle described in the claim petition are two different vehicles and thirdly, the statement of objections does not disclose any dispute regarding the identity of the vehicle, which was alleged to have been involved in the accident and is alleged to have caused the death of the husband of claimant No. 1. Even in the evidence before the Court, R.W.1 who was deposed has not even whispered anything regarding the identity of the vehicle or about the discrepancy of the vehicle as narrated in Exs.P1 and P2 and in the claim statement. In fact the factum of accident has been admitted by the respondent. It is settled law that the admissions need not be proved. Though much was sought to be made about to these discrepancies as noticed during the course of argument, no ground of appeal has been raised about the same nor a case is made out to demonstrate that reliance on Exs.P1 and P2 vitiated the finding of the Tribunal regarding factum of accident. As stated supra, the factum of accident has been admitted by the respondent-insurer. 17. A reading of the first sentence of paragraph 2 of the evidence of R.W.1 will suffice to arrive at a conclusion, which reads thus: "That the offending vehicle No. KA-37/5232 is a goods carriage and it was validly insured with our insurance company on the date of accident.... I have conducted investigation and the report of the investigator also produced herewith. That the deceased was not travelling in the offending vehicle along with goods at the time of accident. I further state on oath that, the owner of the vehicle has deliberately and intentionally entrusted the offending vehicle to the driver Resp.No. 1 who as not having valid and effective driving licence to driver it at the time of accident. This is clear violation of terms of the policy. On this ground also Insurance co. I further state on oath that, the owner of the vehicle has deliberately and intentionally entrusted the offending vehicle to the driver Resp.No. 1 who as not having valid and effective driving licence to driver it at the time of accident. This is clear violation of terms of the policy. On this ground also Insurance co. is not at all liable to pay any compensation." 18. It is relevant to state that the deponent describes himself as a panel investigator in Iffco-Tokio General Insurance Company and lie has been instructed to depose on behalf of the insurer and give evidence on the basis of the documents. So the person who was deposed on behalf of the appellant claims to be a trained investigator and such a trained person himself has not raised any doubt regarding the identity of the vehicle involved in the accident or regarding the discrepancy with regard to the registration number as mentioned in Exs.P1 and P2 and in the claim statement. As narrated earlier, alphabet 'T' could also denote a temporary registration mark and probably that temporary registration mark was of the vehicle implicated in the present case. Hence, not much can be made out about the said discrepancy. Hence, this Court concludes that the Tribunal has relied upon the testimony of P.W.1 and P.W.2 who is the eye-witness to arrive at the conclusion regarding the factum of accident and involvement of the offending vehicle. In the light of the material on record and the admissions on behalf of the appellant-insurer before the Tribunal admitting the involvement of the offending vehicle in the accident, this Court concludes that the alleged discrepancy in Exs.P1 and P2 do not vitiate the finding of the Tribunal regarding the involvement of the offending vehicle in the accident and resulting in the death of the said Basappa. 19. That apart, it is settled law that, any fact which the party desires the Court to believe, it required to be demonstrated by cogent evidence and the burden of proving such fact is on the party alleging it. In the instant case, the only allegation was that, he was a fare paying passenger. In fact the witness who deposed on behalf of the insurer was a trained person and expert investigator. In the instant case, the only allegation was that, he was a fare paying passenger. In fact the witness who deposed on behalf of the insurer was a trained person and expert investigator. Reading of the deposition does not disclose any material which would impinge upon the finding rendered by the Tribunal and which would cast a shadow regarding the correctness of the finding rendered by it. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Fahim Ahmad and Others v. United India Insurance Company Limited and Others reported in (2014) 14 Supreme Court Cases 148, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has been pleased to hold that it is mandatory upon the insurer to not only to plead, but also adduce appropriate evidence to positively prove its assertions. The Hon'ble Apex Court in paragraph No. 6 held as under: "6. Although the plea of breach of the conditions of policy was raised before the Tribunal, yet neither any issue was framed nor was any evidence led to prove the same. In our opinion, it was mandatory for Respondent I Insurance Company not only to plead the said breach, but also substantiate the same by adducing positive evidence in respect of the same. In the absence of any such evidence, it cannot be presumed that there was breach of the conditions of policy. Thus, there was no reason to fasten the said liability of payment of the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal on the appellants herein." 20. Upon perusal of the material on record and after hearing the respective submissions addressed on behalf of the parties, this Court is of the considered opinion that, no case is made out by the appellant to interfere with the judgment and award impugned in this appeal. 21. The learned counsel for the appellant would rely upon the judgment reported in 2008 Kant M.A.C.213 (SC). The facts of the said case are totally inapplicable to the facts on hand. It was a case of a marriage party travelling in the vehicle. In the present case, specific evidence is adduced, by the eye-witness who was a co-occupant of the deceased. The facts of the said case are totally inapplicable to the facts on hand. It was a case of a marriage party travelling in the vehicle. In the present case, specific evidence is adduced, by the eye-witness who was a co-occupant of the deceased. The facts of the case referred to and the facts obtaining on hand are dissimilar and the proposition of law laid down by the Apex Court is that there is no statutory liability on the owner of the vehicle to get the vehicle insured for the passengers travelling in the goods vehicle. In the absence of such an insurance, the insurer was not liable to pay, which is not the case of the appellant. In fact it is not the case of the appellant that the policy does not cover the claim of the passengers who are travelling in the vehicle. On the other hand, cover note clearly denotes that the carrying capacity of the passengers as 1+1. Hence, the cover note ensures the owner has to be insured against two claims or rather it has authorised carrying of passengers. Hence, in this fact also the contention of the appellant counsel must fail. 22. The counsel for the also has also relied upon another judgment rendered by a coordinate Bench of this Court dealing with the scope of the provisions of Sections 147, 166 and 173 reported in 2008 Kant M.A.C.239 (Kant). Yet again the facts of the case are at variance to the facts on hand. It was a case of gratuitous passengers and the Tribunal rendered a finding that the claimants were gratuitous passengers travelling in a goods vehicle. Hence, the evidence on record in the present case is that the deceased was travelling in the vehicle and he was carrying the agricultural goods to his native. The learned counsel for the appellant has also relied upon the authoritative pronouncement of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., v. Premlata Shukla & Others reported in CDJ 2007 SC 627, The Hon'ble Apex Court was dealing with the issue as to whether a part of the document marked before the Court alone could be relied upon and as to whether other party has not entitled to rely upon the portion of the document which is not relied upon by the party leaving the document on record. The Hon'ble Apex Court has held that the factum of accident could also be proved by the First Information Report. In paragraph No.5, it is held as under: "If is to be noted that in the claim petition itself a reference was made to the lodging of the First Information Report." 23. The Apex Court while dealing with the above issue has also been pleased to rely upon the rulings in the case of Hukam Singh as referred to by the Punjab and Haryana High Courts, held as under: "It is not a case where irrelevant evidence had been let in with the consent of the parties but the only objection is that the procedure followed in the matter of giving evidence in Court was not correct. When the parties themselves have allowed certain statements to be placed on the record as a part of their evidence, it is not open to them to urge later either in the same Court or in a court of appeal that the evidence produced was inadmissible. To allow them to do so would indeed be permitting them both the appropriate and reprobate." 24. The facts and circumstances of the case and the law laid down by the Apex Court have no bearing on the facts and circumstances in the case on hand. In fact as rightly held by the Apex Court, the parties cannot be allowed to approbate and reprobate. The appellant having admitted the factum of accident cannot now turn around and dispute the same. It is not the case of the appellant having disputed the factum of accident. Hence, the above ruling is also does not come to the aid of the appellant. 25. That being so, this Court is of the considered opinion that the rulings relied upon by the appellant does not aid or advance the case of the appellant. In view of the above finding, this Court is of the considered opinion that the appeal is devoid of merits and accordingly stands rejected. 26. In view of the above, no order as to costs.