JUDGMENT :

Madan Gopal Vyas, J.

The appellant-Insurance Company has filed the present civil miscellaneous appeal under section 173 of the MOTOR VEHICLES ACT , 1988 against judgment and award dated 23.04.2009 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Parbatsar (hereinafter referred to as the learned Tribunal) in Claim Case no. 12/2007, whereby, the learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 3,47,400/- as compensation to the claimants on account of death of Rameshwar along with interest and has held the appellant-Insurance Company alongwith the owner and driver of the vehicle jointly and severally liable for payment of compensation.

2. The facts in a nutshell giving rise to the present appeal are that on 23.11.2006, the deceased Rameshwar and Bhagu Ram alongwith Sanju (respondent No. 1 herein) were travelling in a jeep bearing registration number RJ 14 IC 6702 which was being driven by Harendra Singh (respondent no. 5 herein). The jeep collided with a tree and turned upside down on account of which Bhagu Ram died on spot and Rameshwar died during his treatment.

3. The Tribunal after hearing the parties, inter alia, held that since the jeep was insured on the date of the accident, the respondent-Insurance Company is jointly and severally liable alongwith respondent nos. 1, 2 and 3. After determining the compensation based on the income and age of the deceased, learned Tribunal passed the award aforesaid.

4. Mr. Jagdish Vyas, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the jeep which met with an accident was a private jeep and was insured under an 'Act only policy' in the name of owner-respondent no. 7-Brahmanand. It is submitted that the passengers travelling in the said jeep were gratuitous passengers for whom no premium had been taken by the appellant-Insurance Company. Moreover, the driver of the jeep also did not possess any valid driving license on the date of accident. It is further submitted that the finding of the learned Tribunal with respect of issue no. 4 is erroneous and cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. Thus, it is prayed that the appellant-Insurance Company be exonerated from its liability. In support of the contentions, reliance was placed on the following judgments:

(I) Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Meena Variyal reported in (2007) 7 SCC 428.

(II) National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Smt. Sahidam Bano reported in 2015 (2) R.A.R. 892 (Raj.)

(III) Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt. Sharda Devi and Ors, SBCMA No. 696/2003, decided on 04.08.2016, Rajasthan High Court.

5. Mr. Bhagat Dadhich and Mr. Kuldeep Singh, learned counsel for the respondents-claimants vehemently opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant. It is submitted that the finding recorded by the Tribunal regarding the liability of the Insurance Company does not call for any interference.

6. I have considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record.

7. From the averments made by the claimants in the claim petition and the evidence led by the claimants, it is an admitted position that deceased was occupant of the insured jeep. It is also an admitted position that in course of treatment, Rameshwar died. Further, learned Tribunal, in para 15 of the impugned judgment has given a finding that the owner and driver of the jeep in their statements have admitted that they did not take any fare from the passengers and the vehicle was not used for hire.

8. I have also perused the Schedule of Premium Of Liability Only policy of Jeep beari