( 1. ) THIS is an appeal against the judgment and decree of the district Judge, Shivpuri, dated 23-7-1970, in Civil Appeal No. 72-A of 1966, against the judgment and decree passed by the Additional Judge to the Court of Civil Judge Class II, Shivpuri, on I9-9-I966, in Civil Suit No. 2-B/65 original Civil.

( 2. ) THE facts giving rise to this appeal are that the plaintiff Chameli devi is the owner of the truck No. 4915 MPG and the said truck is. insured with the respondent Company. On 5th August, 1961, while truck No. MPG 4915 was going from Jadhav Sagar towards Bhadaiya Kundi, Shivpuri, another truck No. MPG 3036, coming from Karbala collided with it and as a result of it, truck No. MPG 4915 was damaged. At the time of the accident, the truck was being driven by Hanumant Singh, its driver. A report was lodged with the Police, in which the said Hanumant Singh admitted that he was driving the truck at the relevant time. One Mr. P. N. Bhargava, the Claim Inspector of the defendant-respondent Company made enquiries. At the instance of Mr. Bhargava, the damaged truck was taken over to kanpur. There, the defendant got replacement of parts of the truck at the expenses of the plaintiff and kept the damaged parts with it and advised the plaintiff to await confirmation of the claim from the Regional Office of the defendant Company. During this period, the Police started prosecution of hanumant Singh in a criminal case and in those proceedings, Hanumant singh submitted that he was not driving the truck at the relevant time, but one Kailash, son of the plaintiff was driving the same. Therefore, the defendant informed the plaintiff by its letter dated 21-2-1962 as under:

"on the basis of report reveived, the claim has been assessed for rs. 4128. 83 net in accordance with the policy terms and conditions which please note. In the claim form you have stated that the vehicle was being driven by Shri Hanumant Singh, the driver of the vehicle, while subsequently, the said Hanumant Singh has declared in the Court at Shivpuri that the vehicle was being driven by Shri Kailash Narain. In view of this discrepancy we regret it shall not be possible for us to settle the claim, till this point is clarified to our satisfaction. We appreciate the inconvenience being caused to you, but regret that in the circumstances of the case we are under obligation to wait for the final judgment of the Court. "

Thus, it was submitted that the only objection for the payment of compensation was the doubt in the mind of the defendant Insurance Company as to who was driving the truck. In spite of all these things, the plaintiff persisted in her demand and as criminal case was taking time and the limitation for filing the suit was coming to an end, the plaintiff filed the present suit. The claim of the plaintiff was resisted by the Insurance Company.

( 3. ) AFTER enquiry, the trial Court came to the conclusion that at the time of the accident, the truck was driven by Hanumant Singh, but because the truck was carrying passengers, in violation of the terms of the Policy, the defendant is not liable to pay the damages. Holding this, the trial Court dismissed the Suit. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the trial Court, an appeal was presented before the District Judge. The District Judge also dismissed the appeal and confirmed the finding of the trial Court. Aggrieved by it, the present second appeal is filed.

( 4. ) IT was submitted before me that under the Policy of insurance, there was no bar for carrying passengers, but they should not be carried for hire or reward. If the passengers who were sitting in the truck were not carried for hire or reward, then, it is submitted that the judgments of the Courts below are contrary to law and the plaintiffs suit deserves to be decreed.

( 5. ) IN my opinion, the submission of the learned counsel is fallacious and cannot be accepted. The truck was used as goods vehicle and goods vehicle is defined under section 2 (8) of the