MFA 77/2011 BEFORE THE HON BLE MR. JUSTICE AMITAVA ROY Heard Mr Das, learned senior counsel for the appellant. The substantial question of law sought to be urged before this Court for the pu rpose of admission of the appeal is that, the policy involved being a private ca r policy, the appellant insurer cannot be saddled with any liability arising out of the accident involving the said vehicle, it having been used at all relevant times for hire and reward. In short, the appellant seeks to contend violation o f policy conditions so as to relieve itself of the liability arising out of the accident. A perusal of the impugned award indicates that the learned Commissioner, Workmen Compensation, Dibrugarh while deciding the issue No.6 had categorically record ed on the basis of the investigation report that the vehicle had met with the accident while returning from Jorhat after dropping passengers and that the app ellant insurer could neither produce insurer investigator nor any witness to sub stantiate that the vehicle was being used for hiring purposes in contravention of the terms and conditions of the policy. This issue relating to the alleged vi olation and breach of the terms and conditions of the policy was therefore dec ided against the appellant insurer. Upon hearing the learned senior counsel for the appellant and on a consideration of he narration pertaining to the decision in Issue No.6 as recorded by the Com missioner, Workmen Compensation, Dibrugarh, I am of the view that no interferenc e with the finding in this regard is called for. The appeal has no merit. It is therefore dismissed. No costs.