that other persons who travelled in the Tempo along with her husband also sustained injuries. Apart from the evidence of PW1 & PW2, Insurance Company relied on evidence of RW3 who is the Police Official who has deposed based on the records stated that none of the witnesses have given statement that decesed Rasudappa was a cleaner and travelled in the vehicle as a cleaner. According to the witnesses, deceased Rasudappa had travelled in the vehicle to participate in the political meeting and these evidence elicited by the Insurance Company shows that the deceased has travelled in the goods vehicle and met with an accident. Further, the deceased travelled along with his villagers to participate in the political meeitng. The claimants have not produced any iota of evidence to show the prima facie case that the deceased was a cleaner by profession. They have also not examined any witness to show that the deceased was working under the 5th respondent as a cleaner. The Tribunal without considering the evidence adduced more importantly the admitted evidence of the claimants that totally 40 persons travelled in the Tempo and deceased has travelled in the vehicle along with his villagers and participated in the political meeting. The finding given by the Tribunal that he was a cleaner under the 5th respondent is not sustainable and based on no
