1 S.B.CIVIL MISC. APPEAL NO.443/1998. Hari Singh. VS Smt.Phool Wati and Others IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR ORDER S.B.CIVIL MISC. APPEAL NO.443/1998. Hari Singh. VERSUS Smt.Phool Wati and Others. 13.11.2009. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE DALIP SINGH Mr.Vimal Kumar Jain, for the appellant. Mr.Ram Singh Rathore, for the respondent. ***** Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the award passed by the learned Tribunal. This appeal has been filed by the owner of the vehicle – Jeep bearing registration No.RJ-05/C-8504 which was owned by the appellant and was being driven by the driver – respondent No.7 Lekhraj. The said vehicle was insured with the respondent No.8 New India Insurance Co.Ltd. The learned Tribunal came to the finding that the deceased was traveling in the vehicle having paid fare for traveling in the said jeep to the Driver Lekhraj, respondent No.7 and while so traveling, the jeep met with an accident in which the passenger deceased Kamal Singh died as a result of the injuries suffered in the accident. Since the vehicle in question did not possess a valid permit for carrying the passengers for hire and reward, the Insurance Company took a defence and accordingly under Section 149 of the 2 S.B.CIVIL MISC. APPEAL NO.443/1998. Hari Singh. VS Smt.Phool Wati and Others Motor Vehicles Act was absolved of its liability by the learned Tribunal. It may be mentioned here that on the basis of No Fault Liability under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act an amount of Rs.50,000/- was paid to the claimants which was paid by the Insurance Company and the learned Tribunal has permitted the Insurance Company to recover the aforesaid amount from the owner of the vehicle, the appellant. It has also come on record that the balance amount which has been awarded has also been paid to the claimants by the appellant at the time of filing of this appeal (Rs.25,000/-). The submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the appellant had not authorized the Driver to carry passengers for hire and reward. He submits that if the Driver was carrying the passengers for hire and reward, the said liability rests solely upon the Driver and not upon the owner of the vehicle, the appellant. So far as the above submission is concerned, the learned Tribunal has given a specific finding on the basis of the evidence of AW-1 Dataram and AW-2 Dalchand who were passengers in the said vehicle and had also received injuries that they had paid the fair to the Driver while traveling in the vehicle and the deceased too had paid the fair to the Driver while traveling in the vehicle. The aforesaid finding which is based upon the appreciation of fact does not call for any interference as the learned counsel for the appellant has not been able to point out any infirmity 3 S.B.CIVIL MISC. APPEAL NO.443/1998. Hari Singh. VS Smt.Phool Wati and Others in the award. The learned Tribunal having regard to the material on record and the totality of the facts and circumstances including the preponderance of probabilities has held against the owner and this court will not interfere in the said findings without there being anything substantial to set aside the said findings. So far as the Insurance Company is concerned, the Insurance Company has rightly been exonerated of its liability and would be entitled to recover the amount of Rs.50,000/- paid by it towards No Fault Liability under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, as has been held by the learned Tribunal. The Insurance Company would be entitled to recover the same from the owner of the vehicle in accordance with the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Swaran Singh reported in 2004 (3) SCC 297. In the facts and circumstances, I find no infirmity in the judgment of the learned Tribunal. Consequently, the appeal stands dismissed. No order as to costs. (DALIP SINGH),J. Solanki DS, Jr.P.A.