Judgment S. K. KESHOTE, J. ( 1 ) IN an accident that occurred on 16. 6. 1998 one Suresh Kumar died and Vandana sustained injuries. Two separate claim applications were filed and decided by a common award dated 30. 9. 9 of the learned Motor Accidents Claim tribunal, Baran (for short, the Tribunal feeling aggrieved of the same, two sepa rate appeals being S. B. Civil Misc. Appeal nos. 128 and 671 of 2000 came to be filed by Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. and the same have been decided by learned single judge by separate orders dated 18. 5. 2000 and 3. 7. 2000 and against those orders of the learned single Judge these two appeals have been filed by the appellant Oriental insurance Co. Ltd. (for short, the appellant company ). ( 2 ) SINCE the dispute involved in both these appeals is identical, the same are taken up for hearing together and being decided by this common order. ( 3 ) HEARD learned counsel for the parties, perused the memo of appeals, the orders of the learned single Judge and the award of the learned Tribunal. ( 4 ) THE only contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant company is that the jeep in which the deceased and the injured were travelling, was a private vehicle and thus it was not permissible to it to carry passengers on charging fare. As the deceased and injured were travelling in the said jeep by paying fare, the appellant company cannot be held liable to reimburse the liability of compensation of the owner of the vehicle. ( 5 ) ON the other hand, learned counsel for the claimants contended that it is not established that in the jeep the deceased and injured were travelling by paying fare. ( 6 ) WE have carefully gone through the statements of Hyan Devi, widow of the deceased Suresh Kumar, AW 1, Meena, wife of Nawal Kishore, AW 2, Girdhar gopal, AW 3 and R. S. Chauhan, NAW 1. It is not in dispute that the jeep was not a commercial vehicle/taxi. There is no bar under Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 that a private car cannot be used by other persons, i. e. , relations, friends, etc. , of the owner. The bar is only that it cannot be used for carrying passengers on hire. It is not in dispute that the jeep was not a commercial vehicle/taxi. There is no bar under Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 that a private car cannot be used by other persons, i. e. , relations, friends, etc. , of the owner. The bar is only that it cannot be used for carrying passengers on hire. It was a specific defence of the appellant company that in the jeep, deceased and the injured were travelling by paying fare. Learned counsel for the appellant company failed to point out anything from the statements of the witnesses of the claimants that they were travelling in the jeep as passengers paying fare. The learned single Judge, therefore, is correct to apply the ratio of the case of new India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Satpal singh, 2000 ACJ 1 (SC), in the facts of this case. ( 7 ) IN the result, both these appeals fail and the same are dismissed. Appeals dismissed.