BHAWANI SINGH, C. J. ( 1 ) ALL these five appeals are proposed to be decided by this order since they arise out of the same accident and award of Motor Accidents Claims tribunal, Jabalpur, dated 6. 11. 1997. ( 2 ) TRUCK bearing registration No. CIQ 1176 met with an accident on 30. 4. 1992, at 4 a. m. near Nigri culvert on National highway No. 7, within the jurisdiction of police Station, Bargi, Distt. Jabalpur. This vehicle was owned by R. N. Tandon and driven by Israil at the relevant time. It was insured with the appellant, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. The deceased were sitting in this vehicle at the relevant time, since the tractor which was boarded by them initially, went out of order. As a result of this accident, all occupants of the truck died. Therefore, claim petitions have been filed by the legal representatives claiming compensation from the owner, driver and the insurance company. It is alleged that the vehicle was being driven rashly and negligently resulting in the accident. ( 3 ) THE defence taken is that the deceased were not labourers, but baratis. It is also stated that income being earned by the deceased has been exaggerated and the owner and the driver committed breach of the policy; the driver also did not possess valid driving licence at the time of accident. ( 4 ) TRIBUNAL found that the vehicle was being driven by the driver with the permission of the owner. The vehicle was insured with Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. and the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving, as a result of which the truck overturned resulting in serious injuries to the occupants who later on died. It assessed their income, dependency and compensation in these cases and the same has been made payable with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of application till realisation. The award has been assailed, therefore, these appeals. ( 5 ) HEARD learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record. First question for determination is whether the insurance company is liable to pay the compensation in these cases, since it is contended by the learned counsel that the vehicle was used in breach of the policy conditions in the sense that it was carrying barat for which it was not meant. First question for determination is whether the insurance company is liable to pay the compensation in these cases, since it is contended by the learned counsel that the vehicle was used in breach of the policy conditions in the sense that it was carrying barat for which it was not meant. We find that there is no evidence that the occupants of the vehicle paid fare for the truck, therefore, it cannot be said that the vehicle was being used for hire or reward at the time of accident. None of the witnesses has testified on this question, nor the appellant has proved or suggested this defence to any of the witnesses. Moreover, the case is covered by the decision of the Supreme Court in New India assurance Co. Ltd. v. Satpal Singh, 2000 acj 1 (SC ). ( 6 ) NEXT contention of learned counsel for the appellant is that the driver did not possess valid driving licence at the time of accident. Except for taking this plea, no other effort has been made to substantiate the same. Therefore, there is no evidence to prove that the driver did not possess any driving licence at the time of accident whereby he committed breach of the policy conditions. ( 7 ) NO other point was urged. ( 8 ) CONSEQUENTLY, there is no merit in these appeals and the same are dismissed. Costs on parties. Appeals dismissed. .