JUDGMENT 1. - All the above-said Civil Misc. Appeals filed by the Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. are directed against the common Award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sikar, (hereinafter referred to as MACT), wherein different amounts have been awarded, i.e., in Civil Misc. Appeal No. 692/97 Rs. 50,000/- has been awarded, in Civil Misc. Appeal No. 693/97 Rs. 1,32,000/- has been awarded, in Civil Misc. Appeal No. 694/97 Rs. 2,01,000/- has been awarded, in Civil Misc. Appeal No. 695/97 Rs. 52,500/- has been awarded, in Civil Misc. Appeal No. 696/97 Rs. 2,42,000/- has been awarded, in Civil Misc. Appeal No. 697/97 Rs. 2,15,000/- has been awarded, in Civil Misc. Appeal No. 698/97 Rs. 1,37,000/- has been awarded, in Civil Misc. Appeal No. 699/97 Rs. 50,000/- has been awarded, because of the injuries and deaths caused on account of the accident between the Jeep No. RJ-23-T- 0005 and a Matador No. DL-5C-4780 on 7th November, 1992 near village Gumana Ka Bas, Nawalgarh, Sikar Road. The owner of the Jeep put Ik blame of accident on the matador whereas the Matador driver put the blame In the Jeep. The Tribunal found the contributory negligence of both the vehicles. 2. The Insurance Company in regard to the Matador has come up in the present appeals only on the ground that the company is not liable for the reason jiat the said Matador was being used as a taxi at the relevant time on hire and payment basis and thus, because of the violation of the conditions of insurance policy, the liability even though 50% put on the present appellant company is illegal. 3. I have gone through the award of the MACT. No such issue was claimed before the MACT in either of the claim application and, therefore, there is no such discussion by the MACT on this point. 4. The Counsel for the appellant had invited my attention to the statement 1 made by R.S. Chouhar, the witness produced by the appellant itself and the only statement made by him was about the general nature that the matador was being used against the terms mentioned in the policy, but without stating therein specifically as is being argued now. The driver of the matador who was the injured person had also filed the claim application and he had also appeared as a witness. The driver of the matador who was the injured person had also filed the claim application and he had also appeared as a witness. His grand mother also died in the accident who was sitting in the matador. He stated that he was taking the matador with his family with the permission of the owner of the vehicle. No question was put to him in the cross-examination that the matador was being driven as taxi or was hired. 5. Apart from above, nothing has been brought on record by the Insurance Company that there was any condition to the effect that in case certain payment made by any of the occupant of the vehicle that will amount to violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy nor any such attention has been invited to any such terms of the policy by the Counsel for the appellant. 6. For the reasons mentioned above, do not find any merit in the abovesaid Misc. Appeals and the same are dismissed.Appeals dismissed. *******