JUDGMENT: This appeal is preferred by the appellant-respondent No. 3 against the order and decree dated 22-03-2006 in M.V.O.P.No. 224 of 1999 on the file of learned Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal – cum – I Additional District Judge, Srikakulam (for short, 'the Tribunal), by virtue of which the Tribunal granted compensation of Rs.2,09,000/-to respondent Nos. 1 to 7-the claimants and directed the appellant to indemnify the owner of the crime vehicle. However, it gave liberty to the appellant to prove any of the contentions raised by it, in which case it would be at liberty to recover the amount from respondent No. 9-respondent No. 2. 2. Aggrieved by the said liability fixed on the appellant, this appeal is preferred on the grounds that the Tribunal failed to take into consideration the specific pleading that the deceased was an unauthorized passenger and that the Tribunal ought to have appreciated the judgment reported in 2003 (1) ALT 35 . 3. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and none appears for the respondents. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant assails the award of the Tribunal only on the ground that the Tribunal did not follow the law laid down in New India Assurance Company Vs. Asha Rani, 2003 (1) ALD 18 (SC). But a perusal of the award of the Tribunal would show that it relied on the subsequent judgment of the Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Bommathi Subbayyamma and others, 2005 ACJ 721 (SC). It also observed that the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in Nelluri Sambasiva Rao (died) per L.Rs. Vs. B.Rama Prasadam, 2006 ACJ 197 held that when the insurance company fails to produce investigators report to rebut the contention of the claimants that the deceased was travelling in a mini truck along with goods, it follows that by virtue of non-rebuttal of the claim of the claimants, insurance company cannot be exonerated. What can be understood from the record is that in this case also, no evidence was produced by the appellant to rebut the contention of the respondents-claimants that the deceased was not travelling as an unauthorized passenger. 5. Hence, in view of the above, the appeal fails and the same is accordingly dismissed. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, in this appeal shall stand dismissed in consequence.