ORDER : 1. This Appeal is arising out of the Order dated 01.02.2007 in M.V.O.P. No. 783 of 2004 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal District Judge, Kurnool. 2. Appellant is the New India Assurance Company, who is respondent No. 2, against whom, the claimants, who are the legal representatives of the deceased, have filed a Petition under Sections 140 and 166 of MV Act, claiming compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- on account of the death of the deceased Chinna Ramudu @ Ramanaidu while travelling in a lorry bearing No. KA 01 9649 belonging to Respondent No. 1. 3. The brief facts of the case are that petitioner No. 1 is the wife and Petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 are the children of the deceased, who died in a motor vehicle accident that took place on 25.06.2002. On 26.05.2002, the deceased boarded a lorry bearing No. TN-33H-2280 in order to go to his village and when the said lorry reached Madarpuram Village, the driver of the lorry drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against another lorry bearing No. KA 01 9649, which is coming in opposite direction, for which, the deceased and some other persons sustained grievous injuries and the deceased succumbed to the injuries while undergoing treatment. The accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the crime vehicle. In this connection, a case in Cr. No. 51 of 2002 was registered against the driver of the crime lorry. 4. At the time of accident, the deceased was aged about 40 years and he was hale and health and earning Rs.3000/- per month by doing coolie work and apart from doing coolie work, the deceased was doing personal cultivation. It is averred that due to abrupt death of deceased, the claimants lost their breadwinner and became destitutes. With these averments, the claimants/ petitioners filed the above said claim petition claiming compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- for the premature death of the deceased. 5. Respondent No. 1 remained ex-parte. 6. Respondent No. 2/Insurance Company filed counter denying all the material averments made in the petition and urged to put the claimants in strict proof of the same. It is averred that due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry bearing No. KA 01 9649 only, the accident occurred. 5. Respondent No. 1 remained ex-parte. 6. Respondent No. 2/Insurance Company filed counter denying all the material averments made in the petition and urged to put the claimants in strict proof of the same. It is averred that due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry bearing No. KA 01 9649 only, the accident occurred. It is also averred that the deceased was travelling in the goods lorry as a unatuthorized passenger. As the driver of respondent No. 1 allowed the deceased to travel in the crime vehicle by collecting the amount from him, respondent No. 2 is not liable to pay any compensation as respondent No. 1 had violated the terms and conditions of the Insurance policy. The Petition is bad for joinder of owner and insurer of lorry bearing No. KA 01 9649. R2 finally contended that claim is excessive and exorbitant and prayed for dismissal. 7. The Tribunal, on consideration of the evidence of witnesses i.e. PW-1 and Exs. A.1 to A.3 and RW-1 and Ex. B.1, has allowed the claim petition, granting compensation of Rs.1,57,300/- with proportionate costs and interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. 8. Aggrieved by the Impugned Award, the Appellant/ the New India Assurance Company Limited, is before this Court, mainly on the ground that the deceased was a gratuitous passenger and the Tribunal has awarded compensation considering the deceased as a person working on the crime vehicle without there being any evidence. 9. Learned counsel for the respondents/petitioners submits that the deceased was not a gratuitous passenger, but he was working in the lorry as a Hamali and travelling in the lorry, and therefore, the Award passed by the Tribunal is in accordance with law. 10. The Tribunal, on consideration of the evidence of the wife-PW-1, comes to a conclusion that her evidence is hearsay evidence as she was not an eye witness to the accident. Therefore, the testimony of PW-1 to the effect that her husband was travelling in the crime vehicle as fare paid passenger at the time of accident cannot be taken as a basis for arriving at a decision with regard to liability of the insurer. Therefore, the testimony of PW-1 to the effect that her husband was travelling in the crime vehicle as fare paid passenger at the time of accident cannot be taken as a basis for arriving at a decision with regard to liability of the insurer. The Tribunal, however, observed that the documents produced by both parties did not reveal that the deceased was travelling in the crime vehicle as a gratuitous passenger on the date of accident. As the material does not disclose that the deceased was travelling in the crime vehicle as a passenger, the Tribunal comes to the conclusion that decision relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner in the case of The New India Assurance Company v. Thangallapallikunta Swaroopa, AIR 2006 SC 2472 referred above, is not applicable to the present facts of the case as the deceased had not traveled as a passenger in the crime vehicle, and as such, he cannot be treated as even a gratuitous passenger. 11. The findings of the Tribunal in respect of liability of the insurer are not clear and categorical to the effect whether the deceased travelled as a gratuitous passenger or not. 12. The purport of the judgment in Thangallapallikunta Swaroopa, referred above, is that the Insurance Company is not liable to pay the compensation in case of death of a gratuitous passenger. Admittedly, there is no evidence on record to show that the deceased was working on the crime lorry as a labourer. There is no evidence to the effect that the deceased was a fare paid passenger. Except the testimony of PW-1, the wife, who was not an eye witness, there is no material on record to show whether the deceased travelled in the vehicle as owner of the goods or fare paid passenger or in any other capacity. It is a fact that the deceased while travelling in the vehicle had met with an accident and died. The accident occurred due to the use of motor vehicle in a public place. The deceased is a third party. In the light of the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in Manuara Khatun & Ors. vs. Rajesh Kr. Singh & Ors. (2017) 4 SCC 796 , the Insurance Company can be directed to pay compensation at first instance and recover the same from the owner of the crime vehicle. The deceased is a third party. In the light of the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in Manuara Khatun & Ors. vs. Rajesh Kr. Singh & Ors. (2017) 4 SCC 796 , the Insurance Company can be directed to pay compensation at first instance and recover the same from the owner of the crime vehicle. In the instant case, the accident occurred in the year 2002 and the OP was filed in the year 2004 and this appeal has been filed in the year 2007. 13. Learned counsel for the Appellant submits that the Insurance Company has already deposited half of the compensation amount and the same has been withdrawn by the party. Under these circumstances, in the light of the Judgment in Manuara Khatun, referred above, the appellant can be directed to pay the balance of compensation at the first instance and recover the same from the owner of the vehicle. The Appellant/Insurance Company is directed to deposit the remaining compensation within a period of Six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order before the Tribunal. 14. With these observations, this Appeal is disposed of. 15. Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.