JUDGMENT : 1. This appeal is filed by the insurance company. The insurance company disputes liability to satisfy the award dated 10.12.2007 in MACP No. 636 of 2006 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Palanpur. Claimants were the heirs of deceased Savairam Lalaram, who was aged about 13 years at the time of accident. He was travelling in a truck on 28.10.2006 when the vehicle met with an accident causing his death. The claim petition was filed seeking compensation from the driver, owner and insurer of the vehicle. Claims Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs. 1,54,500/- to the claimants. When this appeal along with connected appeals was taken-up for final hearing on 14.12.2015, following order was passed: “1. These three First Appeals arise out of separate judgments and awards of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Palanpur, however, pertain to the same accident which took place on 28.10.2006 causing death of three passengers in a truck. According to the claimants, the deceased were traveling in the said truck as paid labourers. On the date of the incident, they had gone for loading and unloading of castor seeds. Depositions of the claimants to this effect were also recorded. Case of the Insurance Company appearing from the written statement was that the deceased were gratuitous passengers traveling in a goods vehicle. The Insurance Company, therefore, is not liable to satisfy the award. 2. Claims Tribunal gave summary judgments in Claims further delay the proceedings. Instead, when the issue is simple and hinges on the evidence of the claimants, let there be cross examination of the witnesses of the claimants by the Insurance Company. This may take place before the concerned Claims Tribunal. The Claims Tribunal shall forward the further depositions along with report upon which the appeals would be heard further. 3. These claim petitions pertain to an accident which took place way back on 28.10.2006. It would, therefore, not be appropriate to remand the entire proceedings for fresh consideration by the Claims Tribunal after allowing the evidence to be brought on record which would further delay the proceedings. Instead, when the issue is simple and hinges on the evidence of the claimants, let there be cross examination of the witnesses of the claimants by the Insurance Company. This may take place before the concerned Claims Tribunal. Instead, when the issue is simple and hinges on the evidence of the claimants, let there be cross examination of the witnesses of the claimants by the Insurance Company. This may take place before the concerned Claims Tribunal. The Claims Tribunal shall forward the further depositions along with report upon which the appeals would be heard further. 4. For above purpose, let record and proceedings be transmitted to the Claims Tribunal who shall issue summons to the witnesses of the claimants whose depositions have already been recorded. Such witnesses shall be permitted to be cross examined by the insurance company. Such further depositions be forwarded to the Court as mentioned above preferably by 31st March, 2016. Appeals be notified for hearing thereafter.” 2. Accordingly, the Claims Tribunal has forwarded further depositions along with report. We are concerned with cross examination of the claimant Lalaram Pratapramji Suthar, father of the deceased, Exh 17. In his cross-examination, he agreed that his son was aged about 14 to 15 years at the time of accident. He did not know who else was travelling with him in the truck. His son had sat in the truck from village Sinadari to go to Unja. His son was helping him in the agricultural operations. He admitted that in the claim petition, he had not mentioned that his son was travelling in the truck with his stock of caster seeds. 3. From such materials on record, it emerges that there was no evidence to suggest that the deceased was travelling in the truck along with his goods. It also not the case of claimant nor has it come on record that the deceased was the labourer employed by the truck owner. In plain terms, the deceased was a gratuitous passenger travelling in the goods carriage vehicle. The insurance company was, therefore, not liable to cover the risk. 4. In the result, the appellant-insurance company is absolved of its liability. To this limited extent, the appeal is allowed. The amount still lying invested before the Claims Tribunal may be returned to the insurance company. The remaining amount which is paid over may not be recovered from the claimant. It goes without say that the claimant can recover the rest of the decreetal amount from the owner of the truck. First Appeal is disposed of accordingly. R & P may be sent back to the Trial Court.