JUDGMENT : 1. This appeal is by the insurer of the offending vehicle challenging the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal on the ground of liability. 2. Heard Smt. Sumitra H. learned counsel for the appellant-Insurer and Sri Ganesh Naik, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1 and 2. 3. With the consent of leaned counsel appearing for the parties, the appeal is heard and disposed off finally. Perused the judgment and award of the Tribunal. 4. As there is no dispute regarding death of one Shankramma in a road traffic accident occurred on 04.07.2007 due to rash and negligent driving of a Tempo bearing No. KA-28/5853 by its driver and quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the only point arises for consideration in this appeal is: Whether the Tribunal was justified in fastening liability on the appellant-Insurer of the offending vehicle? 5. Smt. Sumitra H. learned counsel for the appellant-Insurer submits that the deceased having traveled along with her brother and sister-in-law as gratuitous passengers her risk is not covered under the policy. The Tribunal without considering the same has committed an error in fastening the liability on the insurer of the offending vehicle. Therefore, she prays for allowing the appeal by modifying the judgment and award of the Tribunal in so far as its finding on liability is concerned. 6. Sri Ganesh V. Naik, learned counsel respondent Nos. 1 and 2 submits that there is no illegality or irregularity in the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal warranting interference of this Court. Therefore, he prays for dismissal of the appeal. 7. It is a case of death of one Shankramma in a road traffic accident occurred on 04.07.2007 due to rash and negligent driving of a Tempo. The claim petition is filed by the husband and son of the deceased Shankramma seeking compensation from the owner and insurer of the offending vehicle. The driver and owner of the vehicle who were arrayed as respondent Nos. 1 and 2 in the claim petition though were served with the notice of the claim petition, did not choose to enter appearance and contest the petition and they were placed ex-parte before the Tribunal. The appellant-Insurer of the offending vehicle had contested the claim petition on two grounds. 1 and 2 in the claim petition though were served with the notice of the claim petition, did not choose to enter appearance and contest the petition and they were placed ex-parte before the Tribunal. The appellant-Insurer of the offending vehicle had contested the claim petition on two grounds. Firstly, on the ground that the owner of the offending vehicle having allowed his vehicle to be driven by a person who had no valid and effective driving licence to drive the vehicle as on the date of accident, the insurer is not liable to indemnify the owner and pay compensation to the claimant. Secondly, on the ground that the deceased Shankramma having travelled in the offending vehicle as gratuitous passenger her risk is not covered under the policy and therefore the insurer is not liable to indemnify the owner and pay compensation to the claimants. 8. The Tribunal in paragraph No. 16 of its judgment has held that the insurer has failed to establish its contention that the offending vehicle was allowed to be driven by a person having no valid and effective driving licence. 9. Perusal of the FIR, complaint and charge sheet would reveal that the vehicle was hired by the brother of the deceased for transportation of household articles and the deceased travelled in the offending vehicle as representative of the owner of the goods. The Tribunal considering this material aspect of the matter has held that the deceased having travelled in the offending vehicle as representative of the owner of the goods, her risk is covered under the policy and was justified in fastening the liability on the appellant – Insurer. 10. I have carefully gone through the finding of the Tribunal on liability and I do not find any illegality or infirmity warranting my interference. Therefore, finding of the Tribunal on liability is confirmed and point raised for consideration is answered accordingly. 11. Hence, the following: ORDER: Appeal is dismissed as devoid of merit. 12. The amount if any deposited in the above appeal is ordered to be transmitted to the Tribunal for disbursement in favour of the claimants in terms of the order of the Tribunal. No order as to costs.