JUDGMENT 1. :- Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion that there is no merit is this appeal. 2. The sole contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the observations of the learned Single Judge that there was no issue, no pleading and no evidence about the finding that Jeep was used for taxi purpose as arrived at by the MACT is erroneous. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant for this purpose relies on framing of issue No. 3 and discussion made therein. 4. The claim of the respondents in the MACT case, which arose on account of accident on 10.1.1997, was not accepted qua the Insurance Company by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal notwithstanding its finding that injury was caused on account of accident and vehicle involved in the accident was insured with the Insurance Company on the ground that contrary to the term of Insurance Policy it was being plied as a taxi. The issue No. 3 has been raised in a general manner and does not refer to specific question of fact that Policy of Insurance has been violated because the vehicle was plied as a taxi. Issue No. 3 reads as under: HINDI MATTER374886 5. Nor did learned counsel could show from his pleadings that Insurance Company had taken the plea that vehicle was being plied as taxi at the time of accident. 6. Therefore, it cannot be said that the learned Single Judge was wrong in coming to the conclusion that no issue about vehicle being plied as a taxi was raised. Even the discussion by the Tribunal does not show any such plea was ralised that the vehicle was being used as a taxi at the time of accident. 7. The learned Single Judge has not rest contended by reversing the judgment of MACT for exonerating the Insurance Company from its liability for want of issue and pleading only, but on evidence also held that the finding reached in this regard by the Tribunal is not sustainable. 8. Having perused the finding, we are in agreement with the learned Single Judge that MACT has reached its conclusion that although the passengers were travelling in the vehicle without hire or reward, but the vehicle has been considered to be a taxi only on the basis of presumption drawn on account of general public opinion. 8. Having perused the finding, we are in agreement with the learned Single Judge that MACT has reached its conclusion that although the passengers were travelling in the vehicle without hire or reward, but the vehicle has been considered to be a taxi only on the basis of presumption drawn on account of general public opinion. In our opinion, it is not permissible in the eye of law that notwithstanding the finding that vehicle was being used at the time of accident for carrying inmates not for hire or reward, yet to hold the vehicle to be taxi on the ground that it is general knowledge that jeep is driven as taxi in village, without there being any evidence to that effect. This itself vitiated the finding of the Tribunal, on the basis of which alone the Insurance Company was absolved of its statutory and contractual obligation. 9. Accordingly, in our opinion, the finding reached by the learned Single Judge, on appreciation of evidence also cannot be interfered with. 10. That being so, the appeal has no merit and the same is hereby dismissed.Appeal Dismissed. *******