JUDGEMENT Mungeshwar Sahoo, J. 1. Heard the learned counsel, Mr. Sanjay Kumar No.-1 on behalf of the appellant, learned counsel, Mr. Amit Kumar Rakesh on behalf of the claimant respondents and learned counsel, Mr. Ram Chandra Singh on behalf of the owner under Order 41 rule 11 C.P.C. 2. Notices were issued in the admission matter and thereafter the respondents have appeared. I have heard at length. 3. This Misc. Appeal has been filed by the Oriental Insurance Company against the Judgment and Award dated 3.10.2002 passed by 3rd Additional District Judge-cum-Claims Tribunal, Gopalganj, in Claim Case No. 21/98/3/02 whereby and whereunder the learned Tribunal had directed the Insurance Company appellant to pay the claimants respondents compensation amounting to Rs. 1,34,000/-. 4. The claimants filed the aforesaid claim case alleging therein that Tawarej Ahmad aged about 18 years died in road accident on 25.5.1998 when he was traveling on the jeep being Registration No. BHD 8957. The deceased was going from Mirganj to Gopalganj. The jeep fell in a ditch where there was water logging. It is said that the said vehicle was over loaded with a passenger and the driver was driving the said jeep rashly and negligently. The Insurance Company appeared and filed a contesting written statement. According to the Insurance Company further alleged that the offending vehicle was ensured as private car (Jeep) but it was being used for commercial work at the time of accident and, therefore, the owner violated the policy condition. On these grounds the Oriental Insurance Company pleaded that the company is not liable to pay compensation. 5. It appears that Sheo Kumar Yadav also appeared and filed contesting written statement. It is stated that because of mechanical problem the vehicle in question went out of order. 6. The owner also appeared and filed a written statement alleging that the vehicle was transferred to Nagendra Prasad. After filing written statement except the Insurance Company the other did not contest. 7. After trial and after hearing the parties the learned court below by the impugned judgment and award awarded compensation to the extent of Rs. 1,34,000/- and also awarded interest at the rate of 9% per annum. 8. After filing written statement except the Insurance Company the other did not contest. 7. After trial and after hearing the parties the learned court below by the impugned judgment and award awarded compensation to the extent of Rs. 1,34,000/- and also awarded interest at the rate of 9% per annum. 8. The learned counsel for the appellant raised a short question of law and submitted that the vehicle in question was insured as private vehicle but at the time of accident it was used as commercial vehicle and, therefore, according to the learned counsel Insurance Company is not at all liable to pay. On the other hand, the owner has also appeared and submitted that some other persons appeared by impersonating him and, therefore, the matter may be remanded to the court below. The learned counsel further submitted that there was no such issue framed by the court below. 9. It appears that C.W. 1 in his evidence at paragraph 13 has clearly stated that there were about 15 persons sitting on the vehicle. Likewise C.W. 2 at paragraph 13 has stated that he paid Rs. 21- as fare. It further appears that the learned counsel for the owner has also cross-examined him. From the statements made by these two witnesses as discussed above it is clear that at the time of accident there were many passengers sitting on the jeep and they had paid fare. As such it is clear that the jeep was being used as commercial vehicle at the time of accident. These two witnesses were also passengers in the said jeep. 10. The Insurance Company has proved Ext.-A, the insurance policy. It is clear that the insurance policy was for private car and not for using the vehicle as commercial vehicle. 11. Under Section 94 of the Motor Vehicles Act no person shall use except as a passenger or cause or law any other person to use a motor vehicle in a different place unless there is inforce in relation to the use of the vehicle by that person or that other person as the case may be, a policy of insurance complying the requirements of Chapter-VIII. The requirements are that there must be a valid, effective and enforceable policy and as such policy must cover the use of the vehicle by the person using it at the time and place and the manner in which it is being used. In other words, insurance for one purpose would not ensure for the other purposes. Therefore, a policy obtained for using the vehicle as a private car cannot be used for the purpose of using the vehicle for carrying passengers for hire or reward. 12. In a decision reported in 2001 A.C.J. 127 (New India Assurance Company Ltd. V/s. Anil Kumar and Ors.) a Division Bench of Himachal Pradesh High Court has held at paragraph-20 as follows: "After analyzing the factual and legal position for the purpose of deciding the present case, the vehicle is not covered by a permit to ply for hire or reward and it was a private vehicle not carrying any passenger for hire or reward. It is the owner of the vehicle herself who gave the vehicle/allowed the vehicle to be used as taxi to carry passengers for hire or reward and, therefore, it cannot be said that she has not committed breach of condition of the policy which is the same as the one not permitted by the statutory provisions. The appellant company has established that the breach was on the part of the insured who was guilty of violating the terms or infringement of the contract by handing over a private vehicle for using it as taxi for hire or reward which is a fundamental breach of specified condition of the policy and the exclusion clause under Section 96(2)(b)(i)(a) shall expressly apply in the case in hand denying the respondent owner of the vehicle indemnification by the appellant company." 13. In a decision reported in 1998 A.C.J. 913 (Julian and Others V/s. Peethambaran and Others) the Division Bench of Kerala High Court has held that the vehicle in respect of which insurance policy was issued cannot be used to carry passengers for hire or reward. 14. In another decision reported in 2009(4) P.L.J.R. 406 (M/s United India Insurance Company Limited V/s. Seraj Devi) this Court relying upon the decisions of the Honble Supreme Court at paragraph 9 has held as follows: "Now coming to the appeal preferred by the Insurance Company. 14. In another decision reported in 2009(4) P.L.J.R. 406 (M/s United India Insurance Company Limited V/s. Seraj Devi) this Court relying upon the decisions of the Honble Supreme Court at paragraph 9 has held as follows: "Now coming to the appeal preferred by the Insurance Company. Admittedly the vehicle was insured as a private vehicle under the "Act Policy". The terms of a policy as also the quantum of the premium payable for insuring the vehicle in question depends on amongst others also on the purpose for which the vehicle was being utilized and the extent of the risk covered thereby. By taking an Act Policy the owner of a vehicle merely fulfils his statutory obligation as contained in Section 147 of the M.V. Act. If additional risks are sought to be covered, additional premium has to be paid. As the vehicle was insured as a private vehicle and did not cover any additional risks by paying additional premium, the deceased would be treated as a gratuitous passenger." 15. In a decision reported in (2008)7 SCC 428 (Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. V/s. Sudhakaran K.V. and Ors.) the Honble Supreme Court at paragraph-22 has held as follows: "The contract of insurance did not cover the owner of the vehicle, certainly not the pillion-ridder. The deceased was traveling as a passenger, stricto sensu may not be as a gratuitous passenger as in a given case she may not (sic) be a member of the family, a friend or other relative. In the sense of the term which is used in common parlance, she might not be even a passenger. In view of the terms of the contract of insurance, however, she would not be covered thereby." 16. In view of the above discussions it is clear that the vehicle in question was ensured as private vehicle, but it was being used as commercial vehicle and for that purpose the vehicle was not insured. In view of the above settled principles of law in such case the Insurance Company is not liable to indemnify the owner. 17. The learned Tribunal in impugnu judgment has held that though the owner of the vehicle is liable to pay compensation but offending vehicle was insured, therefore, the Insurance Company was directed to pay. In view of the above settled principles of law in such case the Insurance Company is not liable to indemnify the owner. 17. The learned Tribunal in impugnu judgment has held that though the owner of the vehicle is liable to pay compensation but offending vehicle was insured, therefore, the Insurance Company was directed to pay. The learned court below has not considered the well settled principles of law as laid down by the various High Courts including Patna High Court as well as the Honble Apex Court. 18. In a decision reported in 2010(1) PLJR (SC)76 (Oriental Insurance Company V/s. Parvathneni) the Honble Supreme Court has held that if Insurance Company proves that it is not liable to pay compensation to the claimants, the Insurance Company cannot be compelled by order of court to make payment and later on recover it from the vehicle owner. 19. In view of the above facts the judgments and award passed by the court below directing the Oriental Insurance Company, the appellant to pay the entire amount of compensation is hereby set aside. 20. So far the quantum is concerned no objection has been raised. Now, therefore, the liability is of the owner to pay the compensation amount to the claimant. The claimants are at liberty to realize the compensation from the owner of the vehicle. 21. In the result this appeal is allowed to the extent indicated above and the impugned judgment and award is modified to the said extent.