JUDGMENT 1. - By way of filing this intra-Court appeal under Section 18 of the Rajasthan High Court Ordinance, 1948, appellant United Insurance Company Ltd. seeks to challenge the judgment dated 10.1.2001 passed by learned Single Judge in S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 33/2000, whereby, learned Single judge dismissed the miscellaneous appeal filed by the appellant against judgment and award dated 19.8.2000 passed by the judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bikaner in Claim Case No. 214/1996. 2. The award passed by the learned Tribunal was challenged before the learned Single Judge on the ground that vehicle was insured for private purpose, therefore, the insurance Company is not liable for the passengers who were travelling in the vehicle for hire or reward. The learned Single judge dismissed the appeal on the ground that there is clear finding of the Tribunal that victims were travelling in the vehicle belonging to their family relation and they did not pay any fare. Likewise, it is observed by the learned Single Judge that the Tribunal has given right and cogent reasons for not believing the evidence of the insurer in this regard. Learned Single judge further observed that there is no error in the finding of the learned Tribunal recorded on issues No. 5 and 6. 3. We have perused the impugned award. In the award, issue No. 5 was to be proved by the insurance Company. Issue No. 5 reads as under : "(5) vk;k ojoDr thi dks gk;j o fj;kMZ pyk;k tk jgk Fkk vkSj bl dkj.k vizkFkhZ ua0 2 dk dksbZ nkf;Ro ugha gS\ " 4. Upon perusal of the finding arrived at by the learned Tribunal, we find that Tribunal has given cogent reasons for not treating the said issue to be proved by the Insurance Company. The Tribunal has held that no evidence has been produced on record proving the fact that deceased was travelling as passenger on hire or reward basis. If the insurance Company failed to prove issues No. 5 and 6, then, obviously the learned Tribunal as well as learned Single Judge was right in holding that insurance Company is liable for payment of compensation. 5. With regard to judgment of the Jharkhand High Court cited by learned counsel for the appellant, reported in 2009 ACJ 2795 , Branch Manager, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Kunti Devi & Ors. 5. With regard to judgment of the Jharkhand High Court cited by learned counsel for the appellant, reported in 2009 ACJ 2795 , Branch Manager, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Kunti Devi & Ors. , we are of the opinion that the said judgment is not applicable upon the facts of the present case. In this appeal, after providing opportunity to lead evidence, issues No. 5 and 6 were decided by the Tribunal against the Insurance Company, in which, it was held that deceased was not passenger in the vehicle for hire or reward. In our opinion also, no error has been committed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal as well as learned Single judge while rejecting the plea of the insurance Company that deceased was travelling in the vehicle in question for hire or reward. 6. In this view the matter, this appeal fails and is hereby dismissed.Appeal dismissed. *******