1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR. J U D G M E N T Padam Kumar Sharma vs. Mukesh Kumar Meena & Anr. S.B.Civil Misc. Appeal No.999/2005 under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the judgment and award dated 2nd December, 2004, passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal & Additional District Judge (Fast Track) No.6, Jaipur City, Jaipur in Claim Petition No.514/2004. Date of Judgment ::::::: April 24,2008 Present HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GUMAN SINGH Mr. Vinay Mathur for the non-claimant appellant Mr. K.N.Tiwari for claimant-respondent Mr. V.D.Gathala for respondent No.2. Insurance Company By the Court(oral) This appeal has been preferred by appellant Padam Kumar Sharma, owner of the offending vehicle challenging the judgment and award dated 2nd December, 2004 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal & Addl. District Judge (Fast Track) No.6, Jaipur City, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as `the Tribunal') in Claim Petition No.511/2004 and with an alternative prayer to reverse the finding of the learned Tribunal on issue No.3 regarding liberty to the insurance company to recover the amount of compensation paid to the claimants respondents from the appellant. 2 On dated September 7, 2000 at about 3.30 in the morning the deceased Jagdish was driving jeep No. RJ-14- 1C-0197 and while it was going to Banskho from Nai Nath it turned turtle causing death of Jagdish and injuries to Gajendra Meena, Ram Narayan, Ramphool and Mukesh. As many as five claim petitions were filed, which were allowed by the Tribunal by the impugned award and compensation has been awarded as per the award. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Learned counsel for the appellant, owner of the offending vehicle has not challenged the award on merits but has limited his arguments only on the finding recorded by the Tribunal on issue No.3 giving right of recovery to the insurance company. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the learned Tribunal has erred in absolving the insurance company from the liability to make payment of the award amount though the insurance policy provides for recovery of risk of the driver plus 9 passengers travelling in the jeep. Learned counsel further submits that when the vehicle met with an accident it was being used for the social domestic purposes and not for hire or reward. Learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on the judgment of a co-ordinate Bench of this Court dated 8th August, 2007 passed in S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.3122/2006 Shri Ram Babu & Anr. vs. Smt. Kalawati & Ors. and on the decision of the MP High Court in the matter of National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Brijlata & Ors. {MACD 2008(1)(MP) 152}. 3 Per contra, learned counsel for the insurance company has tried to support the finding on issue No.3. In view of the rival submissions and on perusal of the insurance policy Ex.7 it is revealed that the policy has been issued for the offending vehicle Jeep No.RJ-14- 1C-0197 and it covers the risk of the driver plus 9 occupants when the same is being used for social domestic purposes other than for hire or reward and it has been admitted by the learned counsel for the Insurance Company that the vehicle was not converted for commercial purposes at the time of the accident but it was converted from a later date. There is no evidence on record to indicate that at the time of the accident the vehicle was being run for hire or reward. Therefore, the finding of the learned Tribunal absolving the insurance company from the liability is not sustainable in the facts of this case. As such, the appeal deserves to be allowed and the finding of the learned Tribunal on issue no.3 absolving the insurance company from the liability to pay the amount of compensation to the claimants deserves to be set aside. Accordingly, the finding of the learned Tribunal on issue No.3 absolving the insurance company from the liability to make payment of the compensation amount to the claimants is set aside. Resultantly, the insurance company and the appellant, owner of the offending vehicle are held liable jointly and severally for the payment of the award amount to the claimants and the recovery rights given to 4 the insurance company to recover the amount of award from the appellant, owner of the offending vehicle is set aside. Accordingly, the judgment of the learned Tribunal stands modified as indicated above and the appeal stands disposed of. Guman Singh, J. bairwa