IGH COURTOF JUDICATURE CHHATTiSGARHLBiLASPU! r^i l:iiffiliiiia:!ag o o. 487of20( Dinesh Soni s/o Bhuneshwar Prasad Soni, aged about years, occupatlon Vehicle owner, r/o village Post Lundra, Chowki Lundra, P.S. Dhaurpur, Tehsi! Lundra, Disfi. Surguja, C.G. (OWNER) aneshwarram Nageshlya Dilbandhu Ram, age 25 years, .Driver, r/o village Rasauli, i, P.S. Dhaurpur, Tehsil t. Surguja C.G. Chowki Lundra, 1. Srnt. Geeta Singh w/o Sanjay Singh, . age 21 years, Occuption Household 2. Ku. Mona d/o Late Sanjay Singh, age years 6 months 3. Ku. Sona d/o Late Sanjay Singh, age 1 No. 2 and 3 minor, through natural guardian & mother Smt. Geeta Singh njay Singh Smt. Subeshwari w/o Shri B.R. Singh, age 5Q years, Occupation - Household Shri B.R. Singh s/o Late Tilochan Ram, age 52 years, Occupation Service A!l by Caste-Gond, r/o village Bardih, Chowki Lundra, P.S. Dhaurpur, Tehsil Lundra, DistrictSurguja, C.G. (CLAiMANTS/APPL!CANTS) Sranch Manager, United India Insurance Company Limited, Branch Ambikapur (Near Ram Mandir) District Surguja, C.G. (INSURER/NON APPLICANT N0.3) I ; \^^P\^& Ei,, Shri A.K. Prasad, leamed counsel for the appellants. .2-- ••ih" !>E!|jl8,B (Passed on 26m Juty, 2006} 'he following oral order of the Court was pas; ^f . In this appeai, the oniy point urged by the learned counsel for the appellants is that the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal has erred In exonerating th^ insurer from its liability to pay compensation since the evidence ied by the non-appiicants/appellants before the MACT clearly established that there was no breach of poiicy of insurance since the deceased was not being carried for hire in the Jeep. However, the above contentlon of the iearned counsel for the appellants cannot be accepted since up-on a careful perusal of the record we find that the Tribunal after proper appreciation of the evidence ted by the parties came to the conclusion that deceased was actually traveliing in the ii! fated jeep for hire. The affidavit and evidence of the appellants Dhaneshwarram itseif shows that the deceased Sanjay and the eight other unknown persons bein; carried in the Jeep did not belong to the family of appeltant/owner Dtnesh Sonl and had actuaiiy paid the expenses to him for filling the fuel in the jeep. This fact is also borne out from the evidence led by the respondents herein before the MACT. In this view of the matter the contention of the iearned counsel for the appellants fails. We thus do not find any merit in this appeal. Aecordingiy, it is dismissed. Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- Dilip Raosaheb Deshniukh Judge