JUDGMENT 1. - On 2.11.1984, a truck No.. RSB 525' and ; another truck No. RRM 2111 collided head on near Rampuria bus stand' near' Bagroo. In this' accident, Mangal, Ramu, Hanuman and Alladdin, labourers travelling in the truck No. 2111 died and Hanuman Sahai, Nanchi Lal and Nathu Ram, who were travelling in another truck No. 525 died on the accident. One Girriraj Prasad travelling in the truck No. 525 also received grevious injuries. In all 8 different claim petitions were filed before* the learned Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, *Jaipur. Vide common order and award dated 14.9.1988, the learned Tribunal passed 'the award. Out of 8 claim petitions, there was one claim petition No. 23/85, Smt. Shanti Devi v. Lallu Ram. In this claim case, the learned Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs. 1,71,000/-. The appellant, Oriental Insurance Company Limited, felt aggrieved with the award of the learned Tribunal so far as it relates to the claim case No. 23/85 and therefore, it has preferred this appeal. The appellant has contended that the learned Tribunal has committed error in passing the award of Rs. 1,71,000/- and that the learned Tribunal has committed error in fixing the unlimited liability to the appellant. 2. I have heard the arguments of both the sides 3. The learned Tribunal, after considering the evidence and the material produced by both the sides and considering the arguments advanced by both the sides has come to the conclusion that the deceased Nathu Lal @ Nathu Ram was travelling in the truck with his goat and he has paid the fare. Shanti Devi (AW 1), the wife of the deceased has deposed that the deceased boarded the truck with his goat and paid the fare and there is nothing in the cross-examination to indicate that the testimony of Shanti Devi is not, reliable and trustworthy. In my opinion, the evidence of Shanti Devi is quite natural and reliable and trustworthy and from her evidence it is sufficient proved that the deceased travelled in the truck with his goat and paid the fare. Thus, Nathu Lal travelled in truck in question with his live stock goods for reward and hire. In my opinion, the evidence of Shanti Devi is quite natural and reliable and trustworthy and from her evidence it is sufficient proved that the deceased travelled in the truck with his goat and paid the fare. Thus, Nathu Lal travelled in truck in question with his live stock goods for reward and hire. It has been held in the case of Santra Bai and Others v. Prahlad and Others (1985 ACJ 762) by the Full Bench of this court that in case the passenger is carried in the goods vehicle for hire or reward or if the owner of the goods is carried in the goods vehicle with his goods, the Insurance Company is liable for the compensation. In the case of Badri Narain and Others v. Chotu Ram and Ors. ( 1986 ACJ 1062 ) , this court has reiterated that the Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation if the passenger is travelling in the truck on hire or reward or, with s goods. A statutory requirement of a policy under section 147(1)(b)(i) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and section 95(1)(b)(i) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 is that the policy should insure against any liability which may be incurred by owner in respect of the death of or bodily injury to any person caused by or arising. Out of the use of vehicle in a public place. The deceased Nathu Lal, in 'the case in hand, has died by the use of the vehicle in a public place and the owner of the vehicle is liable to pay compensation in respect of the death of the deceased. Therefore, the Insurance Company is-not permitted by law to wriggle out of the statutory liability by putting in adverse condition in its policy and it cannot avoid its liability to pay compensation on the plea that the vehicle was used otherwise then in accordance with such condition laid down in the policy. The term "any person" used in above provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act would include every person who incurred death caused by or arrived at out of the use of the vehicle and therefore, the passenger for hire and reward is covered by third party risk. Therefore, in my opinion, the appellant, Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation in respect of the death, of the deceased, Nathu Lal. Therefore, in my opinion, the appellant, Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation in respect of the death, of the deceased, Nathu Lal. On this point, therefore, the conclusion of the learned Tribunal seems to be correct. 4. The learned Tribunal, after considering the evidence and the material produced by both the sides and after considering the arguments advanced by both the sides, has determined a total compensation of Rs. 1,71,000/- for the death of the deceased. I find my-self broadly in agreement with this conclusion of the learned Tribunal and I approve the reasons given by the Tribunal in support of its conclusion in assessing the quantum of compensation. I need not enter upon the repraisal of the evidence and reiterate the reasons for the assessment of the compensation because I broadly agree with the reasons given by the learned Tribunal in support of its assessment of the compensation which seems to be correct. In the case of Girijanandini Devi and Others v. Bijendra Narain Choudhary, ( AIR 1967 SC 1124 ) , it has been laid down that where the appellate Court agree with the views and conclusion of the trial court, the former need not enter upon reprisal of the evidence or to reiterate the reasons given by the trial court and the expression of general agreement with the reasons given by the trial court would suffice. In my opinion, therefore, the learned Tribunal has committed no error in passing the award of a total compensation of Rs. 1,71,000/- in claim petition No. 23/85. 5. The copy of the Insurance policy is on record of the learned Tribunal and it has been admitted. A perusal of this policy shows that the additional premium had been paid for making the liability of the Insurance Company unlimited. The policy specifically has stated that the limit of the amount, the Insurance Company is liable in respect of the accident is unlimited. Therefore the learned Tribunal, has committed no error in fixing the unlimited liability to the appellant, Insurance Company because the policy makes the liability unlimited and additional premium has been paid for making the liability of the Insurance Company unlimited. Therefore, the liability of the appellant Insurance Company is unlimited so far as the claim petition No. 23/85 is concerned. 6. No other point has been pressed or argued before me. 7. Therefore, the liability of the appellant Insurance Company is unlimited so far as the claim petition No. 23/85 is concerned. 6. No other point has been pressed or argued before me. 7. The net result above discussed is that there is no force in the appeal and it is, hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.Appeals dismissed. *******