Hon'ble SHARMA, J.—This misc. appeal has been filed against the judgment and award dated 10.7.2006 passed by learned Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.2, Tonk MACT (for short, "the learned Tribunal") in Claim Petition No. 614/2004 (1476/2001) (471/1999), whereby he awarded only Rs. 1,44,000/- against the appellant/non-claimant and held no liability of Insurance Company 2. Brief facts of the case as set up in the claim petition are that on 17.2.1999 the claimant as well as other persons were going in Jeep No. RJ-26-P-0393 to Choth Mata Temple, when the jeep near Barbada Road at village Choru then due to rash and negligence of non-claimant the jeep was over turn in which claimant sustained various injuries including permanent disability. The aforesaid accident took place due to rash and negligence driving. 3. Thereafter, the notice were issued to the non-claimants. Reply was filed. Statements of witnesses were recorded. The learned Tribunal after hearing, framed the issues. The learned Tribunal after hearing both the parties, passed the impugned judgment/award. Hence, this misc. appeal. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned Tribunal while passing the impugned judgment/award has not properly considered the statements of the witnesses and has erred in passing the impugned judgment/award. The finding of the learned Tribunal in regard to issue No. 3 is absolutely contrary to law and facts. The learned Tribunal has wrongly exonerated the insurance company to pay the amount of compensation on the ground that insurance company did not receive the premium towards passenger. The insurance policy is always issued as per the Registration of the vehicle. The appellant is the registered owner of the vehicle and he was driving the vehicle and he was having a valid licence which is exhibited as Ex.9. The vehicle was registered as passenger vehicle and this information was well in knowledge of the respondent Company. To support their case they have placed reliance upon the judgment of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Tilak Singh & Ors., II (2006) ACC 1 (SC). Thus, the impugned judgment/award dated 10.7.2006 passed by learned Tribunal against the appellant while modifying the same holding responsible the Insurance Company-respondent No.2. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent has seriously opposed the aforesaid submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant and submits that the learned Tribunal has passed the impugned judgment after properly considering the statements of the witnesses. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent has seriously opposed the aforesaid submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant and submits that the learned Tribunal has passed the impugned judgment after properly considering the statements of the witnesses. In support of his case he has placed reliance to the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Ganga Devi & Ors., 2006(1) RDD 96 (Raj.) and Mr. N. Prabhakar, Advs vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr., in S.B.C.M.A. No. 176/2009 decided on 9.12.2009 by the Delhi High Court. Thus the impugned judgment passed by the learned Tribunal need no interference of this Court. 6. From a bare perusal of the facts of the case as also the statement of the witnesses produced by both the parties, in my considered view, the learned Tribunal while passing the impugned judgment/award has considered each and every aspect of the matter. Thus, the impugned judgment/award passed by the learned Tribunal need no interference of this Court. 7. In the result this misc. appeal is devoid of merits and stands dismissed and the judgment/award dt. 10.7.2006 passed by learned Addl. District & Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.2, Tonk MACT in Claim Petition No. 614/2004 (1476/2001) (47/1999) is hereby confirmed.