JUDGMENT 1. - By these appeals the appellants - owner of the vehicle have challenged the awards passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Barmer dated 29-11-1991 being Awards No. 181/89 & 182/89. 2. These two claim applications which are subject matter of these appeals were filed in regard to an accident which occurred on 10-7-1988. The truck No. was RJC 1559 owned by the appellant was carrying a marriage party in which deceased Suresh Kumar and injured Teja Ram were travelling. Truck met with an accident and as a result of the accident Suresh Kumar succumbed to his injuries and Teja Ram sustainecf various injuries. In the two claim petitions filed by the respondents the accident was found to be on account of rash and negligent driving of the driver. This finding of the Tribunal challenged by the appellants cannot be disturbed as it is a question of fact which is supported by evidence on record and there is no material which can drive this Court to arrive at a different conclusion then the one arrived at by the Tribunal and, therefore, the findings of negligence are affirmed. 3. Learned Counsel for the appellants challenges the finding of an issue Nos. 4, 5 & 7. These findings relate to the liability of the Insurance Company. The appellants contention is that few of the witnesses have stated in the statements that some amount was settled for being paid and the deceased were not on joy ride and they were the passengers for hire and reward. For this the learned Counsel for the appellants has taken this Court to the evidence of various witnesses. If the evidence of the appellant himself is seen then, he has admitted in his statement that the truck was given for carrying a marriage party on account of acquaintance. The appellant in his statement has nowhere stated that there was any settlement of any kind of payment, which was to be made for the use of the- truck and, therefore, the basic evidence is found wanting in this regard. 4. The learned Counsel tried to point out from the evidence of Bhanwar Lal and injured Teja Ram that it was settled that some payment will be made. Teja Ram in his statement has stated that the truck was taken on fare and it might have been paid by the father of Madan. 5. 4. The learned Counsel tried to point out from the evidence of Bhanwar Lal and injured Teja Ram that it was settled that some payment will be made. Teja Ram in his statement has stated that the truck was taken on fare and it might have been paid by the father of Madan. 5. Father of Madan has not been produced in evidence. In absence of the evidence of father of Madan, it cannot be said that any amount was paid and if it is not established that any amount was paid by the father of Madan, then it cannot be said that any fare was settled at all. These conclusion gets fortified when the evidence of Pannal Lal appellate himself is read, which says in unequivocal terms that it was on account of the proximity of the relations that the truck was given for carrying the Barat. The other witness on which the learned Counsel for the appellant wants to rely is Bhanwar Lal, and Bhanwar Lal also in his statement has not stated as to there was any payment made for carrying Barat and in absence of this evidence, it cannot be believed that any fare was paid for the transport of the Barat. Therefore, the conclusions arrived at by the Tribunal, that the truck was used for a purpose which was not covered by the Insurance Company, cannot be disturbed and, in this view of the matter, the liability of the claim cannot be fastened to the Insurance Company and the findings of the Tribunal in this regard are affirmed.The appeals are therefore, dismissed.Appeal dismissed. *******