JUDGMENT N.K. Mody, J. 1. This order shall also govern the disposal of M.A. No. 142/09, 143/09, 144/09, 610/09,1317/09 and 1318/09 as in all the cases the question involved is one and the same. In all the aforesaid appeals Appellant is Insurance Company and Respondent No. 2 and 3 are the owner and driver, while the claimants in all the appeals are different. 2. In M.A. No. 609/09 Respondent No. 1 Narsingh has also filed the appeal which is numbered as M.A. No. 1318/09. In M.A. No. 610/09 claimants is Gajanan Respondent No. 1 who also filed an appeal which is numbered as M.A. No. 1317/09. In M.A No. 609/09, 610/09, 1317/09 and 1318/09 the award is dated 20th January, 2009 passed by MACT, Manawar. In M.A. No. 609 and 1317/09 Claim Case No. is 59/08, while in M.A. No. 610/09 and 1318/09 Claim Case No. is 60/08. 3. In the matter of Narsingh in M.A. No. 609/08 the award is for Rs. 30,150/-, while in M.A. No. 1317/09 and 610/09 wherein the claimant is Gajanan, the amount of award is Rs. 33,651/-. In M.A. No. 142/09, 143/ 09 and 144/09 the award is dated 29th November, 2008 passed by IV MACT, Dhar. In M.A. No. 142/09 the claimant is Saudrabai and Claim Case No. is 52/08 wherein award is for Rs. 30,100/-, while in M.A. No. 143/09 claimant is Narendra and claim case No. is 51/08 and the amount of award is Rs. 25,000/-, while in M.A. No. 144/09 the claimant is Gangabai and the claim case No. is 50/08 and the amount of award is Rs. 25,000/-. 4. In all the cases claim petitions were filed before the learned Tribunal alleging that on 29th February, 2008 Respondent No. 1 of M.A. No. 142/ 09,143/09,144/09 i.e., Saudrabai, Narendra and Gangabai were travelling in a Tempo Tax bearing Registration No. MP/09-V/4972 which was being driven by Respondent No. 2 rashly and negligenly and owned by Respondent No. 3. It was alleged that the said Tempo Tax was insured with the Appellant. It was alleged that the said Tempo Tax was insured with the Appellant. It was alleged that because of rash and negligent driving of Respondent No. 2 the said vehicle was turned down, with the result all the three passengers who were travelling in the vehicle sustained injuries and two other persons who were pedestrian, namely Gajanan and Narsingh who are Respondent No. 1 in M.A. No. 610/09 and 609/09 respectively, also sustained injuries. In all the petitions it was alleged that since the accident occurred because of rash and negligent driving of Respondent No. 2, therefore, claim petition filed by the Respondent No. 1 be allowed and compensation be awarded against Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 and Appellant. 5. All the claim petitions were contested by the Appellant on various grounds, including on the ground that the Insurance Company is not liable for payment of compensation, as the offending vehicle was insured as private vehicle, while it was being used for commercial purposes. In alternative it was alleged that the liability of Insurance Company is limited as per terms of the policy. It was prayed that all the claim petitions filed by Respondent No. 1 be dismissed, so far as it relates to Appellant. After framing of issues and recording of evidence holding that Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 and Appellant are liable for payment of compensation and the compensation was awarded as stated, above, against which present appeals have been filed. 6. Gajanan and Narsingh who were pedestrain, have also filed the appeals which are number as M.A. No. 1317/09 and 1318/09 respectively, as they are dis-satisfied with the amount of award. 7. In all the appeals learned Counsel for the Appellants argued at length and submits that the impugned award passed by the learned Tribunal is illegal, incorrect and deserves to be set aside. It is submitted that the learned Tribunal committed error in holding the Appellant liable for payment of compensation. It is submitted that ample evidence was on record to demonstrate that the offending vehicle was being used as commercial vehicle, while the vehicle was registered with concerned RTO and insured with the Appellant Insurance Company as private vehicle. It is submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case, Appellant Insurance Company could not have been held liable for payment of compensation. Learned Counsel placed reliance on the document Ext. It is submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case, Appellant Insurance Company could not have been held liable for payment of compensation. Learned Counsel placed reliance on the document Ext. D/ 1 which is Final Report. It is submitted that even if it is assumed that the Appellant is liable for payment of compensation, then too, the liability of the Appellant Insurance Company is limited as per terms of policy. It is submitted that the Appellant was liable only in case of 100% disablement. It is submitted that Ext. D/I was duly proved by examining Mr. Pradeep Gangwal as DW/1 on behalf of Appellant, who has stated that as per INT-16 the passengers who were travelling are not covered under the definition of third party. It is submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case, appeals filed by the Appellant be allowed and the impugned award against the Appellant be set aside. 8. So far as M.A. No. 1317/09 and 1318/09, which were filed by Gajanan and Narsingh, who were pedestrain, are concerned, learned Counsel for the Appellant Insurance Company submits that the amount awarded by the learned Tribunal is just and proper, which requires no interference. It is prayed that both the appeals be dismissed. 9. Mr. P.N. Saxena, learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 1 submits that in MA. No. 1317/09 and 1318/09 which are filed by Gajanan and Narsingh amount awarded by the learned Tribunal is on lower side as the injuries sustained by the Gajanan and Narsingh were grievous in nature. It is submitted that amount of award be enhanced. It is submitted that so far as Respondent No. 1 is concerned, the offending vehicle was duly insured and the Respondent No. 1 was third party, therefore, Appellant is liable for payment of compensation. 10. Mr. Sunil Jain, learned Counsel for Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 submits that the offending vehicle was registered as private vehicle and was insured as private vehicle. It is submitted that the vehicle was insured for carrying 9 passengers at a time. It is submitted that the passengers who were travelling at the relevant time, were the members of the family or family friends and were going to attend a function. It is submitted that the vehicle was insured for carrying 9 passengers at a time. It is submitted that the passengers who were travelling at the relevant time, were the members of the family or family friends and were going to attend a function. It is submitted that there is nothing on record on the basis of which it can be said that the offending vehicle was being used for transporting the fare paying passengers. It is submitted that the learned Tribunal has also found that the offending vehicle was not being used for carying fare paying passengers. It is submitted that the appeals filed by the Appellant company be dismissed. 11. So far as M.A. No. 1317/09 and 1318/09 filed by Gajanan and Narsingh are concerned, learned Counsel for Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 submits that looking to the injuries sustained by them, amount awarded by the learned Tribunal is just and proper, which requires no interference. 12. From perusal of the record it is evident that Ext. D/l (Final Report) is lodged by one Mr. Arujun Singh Solanki who was working in Police Department. This witness has not been examined by the Appellant Insurance Company to prove the contentions of FIR. In this document also it is nowhere stated that the vehicle was being used for commercial purposes. The only thing which is mentioned in the said document is that the vehicle was carrying passengers. It is true that in Ext. D/l it is mentioned that after investigation it is found that the vehicle was not carrying any permit and was being used for carrying passengers, but on what basis this inference was drawn by the Investigating Officer is not on record. The challan which was filed by the police is also not on record. 13. D/l it is mentioned that after investigation it is found that the vehicle was not carrying any permit and was being used for carrying passengers, but on what basis this inference was drawn by the Investigating Officer is not on record. The challan which was filed by the police is also not on record. 13. In the matter of Gauribai v. Kailash 2009 ACJ 2295 , wherein the jeep turned turtle down and several passengers sustained injuries and the Insurance Company seeks to avoid its liability on the ground that offending vehicle was registered as a private vehicle but was being used for commercial purpose and the FIR was lodged by a person who was not travelling in the vehicle, this Court held that Insurance Company neither summoned the record of criminal case nor did it controvert the injured about their statement before the police and the Insurance Company failed to call other injured passengers prove the fact that they were fare-paying passengers, therefore, it was held that Tribunal was justified in not exonerating the Insurance company. 14. In the present case also circumstances are similar in nature, as no evidence was adduced by the Appellant Insurance Company to prove that the offending vehicle was carrying fare-paying passengers. So far as FIR is concerned, it was lodged by one Premsingh who was Head Constable in the concerned Police Station and was not the passenger of the offending vehicle. In the FIR it is nowhere stated that the passengers who were travelling, were fare-paying passengers. Statement of passengers who were travelling in the offending vehicle were not filed. The claimants were not controverted with their statement which were given by them before police. 15. Keeping in view the aforesaid possition of law and after taking into all the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that no illegality has been committed by the learned Court below in holding the Appellant liable for payment of compensation jointly and severally alongwith Respondent Nos. 2 and 3. 16. So far as M.A. No. 1317/09 and 1318/09 filed by Gajanan and Narsingh are concerned, looking to the injuries sustained by them it appear that the amount awarded by the learned Tribunal is on lower side and in both the case the same deserves to be enhanced. 2 and 3. 16. So far as M.A. No. 1317/09 and 1318/09 filed by Gajanan and Narsingh are concerned, looking to the injuries sustained by them it appear that the amount awarded by the learned Tribunal is on lower side and in both the case the same deserves to be enhanced. Thus, in both the cases Respondent No. 1 Gajanan and Narsingh shall be further entitled for a sum of Rs. 20,000/- each. 17. With the aforesaid observations, appeal stands disposed off. A copy of this order be placed in the record of M.A No. 142/09, 143/09, 144/09, 610/09, 1317/09 and 1318/09.