depend upon the finding of the former question. The unchallenged version of PW1 is to the effect that deceased Radhakrishnan was travelling on the platform of the offending vehicle, which is a goods autorickshaw, his status can only be that of a gratuitous passenger or an unpaid passenger. As noticed hereinbefore, there is no pleading to the effect that deceased Radhakrishnan was an authorised representative of the owner of the goods, which was being loaded in the vehicle in question and in fact, there was no evidence on record, which would suggest that he was actually travelling as an authorised representative of PW2. In the said circumstances, when the evidence of PW1 is taken as true, it is to be believed that deceased Radhakrishnan along with PW1 and others were travelling on the platform of the said goods autorickshaw. In such circumstances, when once it is obvious that he was not travelling in the cabin of the said autorickshaw, his status can only be that of a gratuitous passenger. True that, in this case, the real nature of the policy was not actually gone into by the Tribunal. But at the same time, there is no specific finding regarding the nature of the policy. On going through the policy, which is Ext.B1 and also taking note of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant at the Bar, it is evident that it is a
