JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal has been filed by the Insurer against the judgment and award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Barmer dated 28.3.1992 decreeing the claim of the respondent No. 1 for personal injury, for a sum of Rs. 20,000/-. Likewise the claimant respondent has also filed cross objection for enhancement of the award. 2. It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the vehicle in question was a private vehicle wherein passengers were being carried for hire and reward, and therefore. there was breach of specified condition of the policy, and the appellant is not liable. 3. In this regard it was submitted that a bare reading of the claim petition shows that the driver of the Jonga was calling passengers to board his vehicle by paying fare at the rate equivalent to the one charged by bus, and when the claimant was boarding the Jonga, suddenly the driver took the vehicle in reverse gear, as a result of which the claimant received injuries. 4. On the other hand, it is contended by the learned counsel for the claimant that may be that the vehicle was being used for carrying passengers for hire or reward, but then the claimant was not a passenger in the vehicle rather he had received injuries by the tyre of the vehicle running over his person, and thus he was third party, and therefore, the Insurer is very much liable. 5. I have considered the submissions and perused the record. 6. From the perusal of the cover note it is clear that the column regarding limitation as to use is left blank, and there is no oral evidence led on behalf of the appellant to show that the Insurance Cover was issued restricting use of the vehicle for private use only. Then from a combined reading of the claim petition, and the statement of the claimant, including the cross examination of the claimant, it cannot be said that the claimant was a passenger in the vehicle, rather he received injuries by tyre of the Jonga, running over his person, and as such he is clearly a third party for which the appellant is very much liable. 7. 7. Regarding cross objection I have perused the cross objection in the light of the statement of the claimant, and find that against the amount aimed for medical expenditure to the extent of Rs. 4000/- even in the absence of any bills or vouchers an amount of Rs. 3000/- has already been awarded. Likewise for the loss of crop an amount of Rs. 2000/- as deposed while in the witness box has also been awarded. Then regarding loss of income the learned Tribunal has assessed the loss of income at Rs. 150/- per month, and accordingly has awarded an amount of Rs. 15000/- as compensation, which in the circumstances of the case is imminently just, and proper. 8. Thus, I do not find any force in the appeal, and the cross objection a well. Both are, therefore, dismissed. The parties shall bear their own costs.Appeal Dismissed. *******