The insurance company is not liable to pay compensation if there is a breach of a specified condition of the policy, such as excluding the use of the vehicle for hire or reward.

1. - These two appeals arise out of award passed by the learned Member, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bikaner on 26.7.1989 in Claim Case No. 23 of 1986.

2. The owner and the driver have challenged the award by filing Appeal No. 275 of 1989 pleading that the accident had occurred because of rash and negligent driving of jeep No. RJS 6395 and, the claim should have been decreed against the owner, driver and the insurer of that vehicle. The United India Insurance Co. Ltd. by filing Appeal No. 261 of 1989 has challenged this part of the direction in the award that it may recover the sum of Rs. 15,000/- and interest paid under Section 92-A of the Motor Vehicles Act by filing separate suit.

3. The claimants case was that Vijay Kumar, aged 20, was travelling in jeep RJS 774 driven by Mahi Ram on Bikaner-Nokha road and that this jeep collided with jeep RJS 6395 which was coming from opposite direction and driven by Shyam Sunder. The claimants case was that Vijay Kumar suffered fatal injuries and died after 2 days. Rs. 5,02,080/- were claimed as compensation. In the reply, Mahi Ram denied that he was driving the jeep. The case set up by Guman Giri, owner, was that he had already sold the jeep on 10.12.1985, i.e., before the accident to one Bhagwana Ram. The United India Insurance Co. Ltd. admitted that the jeep was insured with them, but it denied the liability on the grounds that jeep had already been sold by the insured and that insured used the jeep as taxi; whereas it was registered as a private vehicle. The driver and owner of the jeep RJS 6395 did not file return. The Tribunal framed 4 issues. The claimants examined 5 witnesses and in rebuttal Guman Giri and Bhagwana Ram gave their statements. One Deepa Ram, an employee of Registration Department was also examined. The learned Tribunal after hearing the parties held that the accident had taken place because of rash and negligent driving of jeep No. RJS 774 by Mahi Ram and Guman Giri was owner of that jeep and, therefore, they were liable to pay compensation. A sum of Rs. 39,000/- was awarded as compensation. The claim was dismissed against the insurance company on the ground that there was. breach of terms of policy by the insured.

4. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case.

5. Mr. Choudhary, learned Counsel for the claimants contended that the Tribunal has erred in holding that there was no fault on the part of driver of the jeep RJS 6395 and that the insurer of jeep RJS 774 should also have been held liable for payment as the vehicle was not used for carrying passengers for hire or reward.

6. On the other hand, Mr. R.K. Mehta, appearing for the insurance company has urged that the Tribunal has rightly held the insurance company not liable to make payment of award. His further submission was that the Tribunal should have directed Guman Giri to make a refund of Rs. 15,000 and interest to the insurance company which was paid on his behalf under Section 92-A of the Act.

7. I have carefully considered the rival contentions raised on behalf of both the parties.

8. Chand Mohd., AW 3, has deposed that he was also travelling in the jeep which was being driven by Mahi Ram and that besides him, there were 11-12 more passengers and that all of them paid fare for going in the jeep. He has given the details of the accident. He has clearly deposed that the jeep in which he was travelling was being driven with excessive speed and that the deceased was sitting on the right hand side of the driver of the jeep, which was right hand driven jeep. By his statement, it is amply proved that the jeep was carrying passengers for hire and not only that, it was being driven at an excessive speed and negligently inasmuch as the deceased was asked to sit on the right hand side of the driver. There could not be any place to sit when it was right hand driven jeep. Of course, it has come in the statement of Chand Mohd., AW 3, that the jeep coining from opposite dire