.abs IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL NO. 2187 OF 2008 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of : coram, appearances, Court’s Orders: Court’s or Judge’s orders or directions and Registrar Orders: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Mr.V.N. Sagare for the appellant. Mr.T.J. Mendon for the respondents. CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, J. DATE : 10TH DECEMBER 2008 P.C. P.C. P.C. : 1. Heard both sides. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the compilation in the appeal is the only compilation on which the appellant relies upon and it contains all the necessary documents except the insurance policy, a copy of which is handed over. The clause in the insurance policy with respect to "limitation as to use" reads thus:- "Use only for social, domestic and pleasure purpose and insured’s own business. The policy does not cover the use for Hire or Reward - 2 - or for Organised racing, pacemaking reliability trials, speed testing, carriage of goods (other than samples) in connection with any trade or business or use for any purpose in connection with Motor Trade." 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the deceased was a fare paying passenger and, therefore, the vehicle was used for Hire or Reward and, therefore, the appellant is not liable to pay the compensation. 4. The Tribunal has recorded a finding of fact (para 9 of the order) that no evidence was brought on record to show that the deceased was a fare paying passenger. On being asked what is the material on record to show that the deceased was a fare paying passenger, learned counsel for the appellant fairly stated that there is no material on record to show that the deceased was a fare paying passenger. If the deceased was not a fare paying passenger, but merely was a relative or friend of the owner, there was - 3 - no breach of the terms of the insurance policy. In the absence of any material on record to show that the deceased was a fare paying passenger, the appellant is liable to pay the compensation. 5. No other point was urged. The appeal is accordingly dismissed summarily. (D.G. KARNIK, J.)