Heard both the counsel.

2. Aggrieved by the order and decree dated 18-9-1997 passed by the court· of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Khammam in O.P.No.89/1993, the Insurance Company filed the appeal.

3. The case of the claimant in brief is that on 22-10-1992 at about 1.00 a.m., he was travelling in the car bearing No. DIA2640to go to his native place Gujmpena from Khammam. While so, due to rash and negligent driving of the car by its driver, the car dashed against a stationed lorry bearing No.AP - 36/T-2439 near Tirvur cross-roads. As a result of the accident, claimant sustained multiple injuries and was shifted to Government Hospital, V.M. Banjer, wherefrom, he was referred to Government Hospital, Khammam. The police registered a case against the driver of the car under Section 338 I.P.C. Alleging that the claimant was an agriculturist having Acs.10-00 of land and out of which Acs.6-00 is wet and rest is dry and that he was growing commercial crop and that he suffered loss of nearly Rs.40,000/- as earnings and that he spent Rs.25,000/- towards medicines and treatment, claim petition was filed claiming an amount of Rs.2,00,000/-.

4. The driver and the owner of the vehicle remained exparte and the Insurance Company contested the matter by filing counter and disputed the age, avocation, accident etc, alleged by the claimant. It is stated that the driver of the car has no valid licence. It is contended that as the car was used for hire or reward, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation, as the same amounts to violation of the policy conditions. With these averments, the claim petition was sought to be dismissed.

5. Based on the rival pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues for trial:

1. Whether the petitioner sustained injuries owing to the rash and negligent driving of the crime car by its driver 1st respondent?

2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to any compensation? If so, to what amount and from which of the respondents?

6. In support of the case of the claimant, he examinedhimselfasP.W.1 and examined the doctor who treated his injuries, as P.W.2 and got marked Exs.A-1 to A-22. On behalf of the respondents, no witness was examined and the Insurance Company got marked Ex. B-1 copy of the insurance policy.

7. Based on the evidence of P.W.1 and also taking into consideration Exs.A-1 to A-3, which are copies of F.I.R., Charge sheet and M.V.I., report and further as the Insurance Company did not lead any rebuttal evidence, the Tribunal held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the car. This being a finding of fact, based on evidence, cannot be interfered with in the appeal.

8. Coming to the contention of the Insurance Company that the vehicle was used was for hire or reward, the Tribunal considered Ex. B-1 policy, which shows that the policy was issued for private car having seating capacity of five persons. Though there is condition in the policy that the policy does not cover the use of the vehicle for hire or reward or for speed testing etc., as there is no evidence on record to show the vehicle was used for hire or for reward, the Tribunal found that there are no violations of any policy conditions. In the grounds of appeal, the Insurance Company at ground NO.6 contended that the car was hired at the rate of RS.800/per day and the same is not covered by the policy. As already stated above, to prove that the car was hired for Rs.800/-, there is no evidence on record or at least the same was also not elicited from the evidence of P.W.1. The Insurance Company except marking Ex. B-1 policy did not produce any evidence either oral or documentary to prove that the car was hired for Rs.800/-. In the absence of any evidence on record, the contention of the Insurance Company that the car was hired for Rs.800/-, has no basis and the same is liable to be rejected and accordingly rejected:

9. With regard to grant of compensation, the Tribunal considered Exs.A-4 to A-8 w