JUDGMENT 1. 1. Since all the five Misc. Appeals arise out of common judgment/ award dated 30.11.2000 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Beawar (Rajasthan), hence same are being decided by this common judgment. 2. By filing the Misc. Appeals the appellants Insurance Company have challenged the impugned judgment and award dated 30.11.2000 passed by learned Accident Claims Tribunal, Beawar (for short the learned Tribunal ) praying certain prayers mainly to quash and set aside insofar as to the extent the same holds the appellant company to be liable jointly and severally to pay the compensation awarded and certain other prayers were also made. 3. In brief facts of the case are that 11-12 persons were coming from Gulabpura to Bandanwara on 22.10.1997 in Jeep No. RJ-01/C-1966. The said jeep was being driven by its owner Tara Chand. The aforesaid jeep at around 10 :30 PM, struck an accidented truck lying on the road near Village Sathana. On account of the aforesaid accident, Ashok Kumar and Smt. Jaitoon (Passengers in the jeep) expired whereas the other passengers viz. Master Naushad, Imamuddin alias Munshi, Smt. Rukkaih and Kumari Shamim Bano received injuries. 4. Claim petition No. 556/1997 was instituted for compensation vis-? -vis death of Ashok Kumar. 5. Claim petition No. 557/1997 was instituted for compensation vis-? -vis death of Smt. Jaitoon. 6. Claim petition No. 57/1998 was instituted for compensation vis-? -vis injuries sustained by Master Naushad. 7. Claim petition No. 81/1998 was instituted for compensation vis-? -vis injuries sustained by Imamuddin alias Munshi. 8. Claim petition No. 57/1998 was instituted for compensation vis-? -vis injuries sustained by Smt. Rukkaih 9. Claim petition No. 83/1998 was instituted for compensation vis-? -vis injuries sustained by Kumari Shamim Ba No. 10. Therefore, the notices were issued and the learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company put his appearance. The Insurance Company filed reply to the claim petition. 11. After hearing both the parties, the learned Claims Tribunal passed the judgment / award dated 30.11.2000. 12. Against the said judgment / award dated 30.11.2000 the appellant Insurance Company filed the instant Misc. Appeals. 13. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant Insurance Company submits that the offending jeep was registered as a private motor vehicle and was accordingly insured and same was carrying fare paying passengers in violation of the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy. Against the said judgment / award dated 30.11.2000 the appellant Insurance Company filed the instant Misc. Appeals. 13. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant Insurance Company submits that the offending jeep was registered as a private motor vehicle and was accordingly insured and same was carrying fare paying passengers in violation of the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy. The offending jeep had a sitting capacity of 10 persons only whereas 11-12 persons were travelling therein at the time of the accident. The driver of the offending jeep did not possess license to drive a light transport vehicle in order to drive the said jeep as a taxi and the truck No. RJ-01/G-2709 was parked in an accidented condition on road in violation of the traffic rules and regulation. Thus, the impugned judgment/award dated 30.11.2000 passed by the learned Tribunal be quashed and set aside. 14. On the other hand Mr. Sandeep Mathur, learned counsel appearing for the claimants has produced before the Court the insurance policy. He submits that in the insurance policy it is clearly mentioned that the appellant Insurance Company has obtained Rs. 480/- for nine passengers. It is also mentioned in the aforesaid insurance policy that the number of passengers can be 10. He submits that there is no violation of the insurance policy and as per the insurance policy the risk of the passengers was covered. 15. Mr. Mathur, further submits that the driver Tara Chand was having the licence of light motor vehicle and he produced the same before the learned Tribunal. He submits that he has not breached the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. He submits that the learned tribunal rightly framed the issues and passed the impugned judgment/award. 16. I have heard learned counsel appearing for both the respective parties. 17. From a bare perusal of the record it is clear that the driver Tara Chand was having licence of light motor vehicle. So far as insurance policy is concerned, in this regard it is submitted that driver Tara Chand had deposited Rs. 480/- for carrying ten passengers. As per the insurance policy the risk of the passengers was covered. Thus, the impugned judgment/award dated 30.11.2000 passed by the learned Tribunal needs no interference of this Court. 18. In the result, the aforesaid Misc. Appeals are devoid of merits and stands dismissed. 480/- for carrying ten passengers. As per the insurance policy the risk of the passengers was covered. Thus, the impugned judgment/award dated 30.11.2000 passed by the learned Tribunal needs no interference of this Court. 18. In the result, the aforesaid Misc. Appeals are devoid of merits and stands dismissed. The impugned Judgment/award dated 30.11.2000 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Beawar (Rajasthan) is confirmed. The Registry is directed to take on record the insurance policy.Appeal dismissed. *******