JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal has been filed against the award dated 25.7.2012 of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Neem Ka Thana. Against this award of the Claims Tribunal, the owner and the driver of the vehicle have filed this appeal for quashing the award to the extent of exonerating the insurance company. 2. It may be mentioned that the earlier award dated 25.2.2008 passed in the Claim No.721 of 2005 filed by the dependents of the deceased, was challenged by the present appellants before this Court in S.B.Civil Misc. Appeal No. 2635 of 2008. This Curt vide order dated 23.8.2011 remanded the matter to the MACT to decide afresh in the light of the judgment of Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. v. Kumari Vandana 2005 RAR 274 (Raj.) and United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Mahendra Singh Jadawat and others S.B.Civil Misc. Appeal No. 4052 of 2008 decided on 2.5.2011 . The MACT decided the issues 2 and 3 after hearing all the parties. The MACT considered the judgments submitted by the parties. 3. The learned counsel for the appellants has contended that the MACT has not properly considered the arguments and the evidence on record while deciding the issues 2 and 3 afresh in view of the order of remand passed by this court on the earlier appeal filed by the present appellants. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellants. The MACT passed the award dated 25.7.2012 after hearing the counsel for all the parties including the appellants. The appellants have been rightly held liable to pay the compensation to the claimants. The insurance company, which has previously paid Rs. 50,000/- to the claimants has also been given a right to recover the amount from the owner and driver of the vehicle. The MACT after considering the evidence of both the parties came to the conclusion that the insurance company issued "Act only Policy and the insured cannot be fastened with the liability to pay compensation in respect of the passengers in vehicle for hire or reward or otherwise. The MACT after considering the evidence of both the parties came to the conclusion that the insurance company issued "Act only Policy and the insured cannot be fastened with the liability to pay compensation in respect of the passengers in vehicle for hire or reward or otherwise. The MACT in the award dated 25.7.2012 in paras 12 and 13 observed as under : " 12- thi ua0 RJ 23 C 1271 dh chek ikWfylh izn'kZ NA1 is'k dh xbZ gS] ftlds vuqlkj ;g okgu PRIVATE CAR POLICY ACT liability only ds rgr chehr fd;k x;k gSA mDr thi esa cSB fdlh ;k=h dh tku ds tksf[ke ckcr dksbZ izhfe;e fy;k x;k gks] ;g rF; Policy esa ntZ ugha gSA bu rF;ksa dks chek dEiuh ds vf/kdkjh jkds'k 'kekZ NAW1 us vius dFkuksa ls lkfcr Hkh fd;k gSA chek ikWfylh izn'kZ NA1 ds vuqlkj M~kbZoj dh tku ds tksf[ke ckcr 25@& :i;s dh izhfe;e jkf'k ds vykok okgu ds vUnj fdjk;s dh ;k fcuk fdjk;s dh lokjh ds :i esa ;k=k dj jgs fdlh Hkh O;fDr dk fjLd doj ugha FkkA okgu pkyd dSyk'k NAW1 us Lohdkj fd;k gS fd mldh thi esa cSBs yksx mlds tkudkj ugha FksA mlus mu O;fDr;ksa dks vius firk dk tkudkj gksuk crk;k gS fdUrq lk{kh M~kbZoj dSyk'k dk firk mDr i{kdFku ds leFkZu esa is'k ugha gqvk gSA blfy, e`rd rstiky okgu M~kbZoj@Lokeh dk fe=] ifjokj dk lnL; Fkk nksLr ugha FkkA ekuuh; jktLFkku mPp U;k;ky; }kjk Jherh jktjkuh mijksDr m)Zr okys ekeys esa fuEu er izfrikfn fd;k x;k gS%& " Thus it is no more res-integra that the Insurance company issuing " Act only Policy" in favour of the insured, can not be fastened with the liability to pay compensation in respect of the passengers in vehicle for hire or reward or otherwise. " mDr ekeys esa izfrikfnr fl)kUr ekStwnk dsl ds rF;ksa ij iw.kZ :i ls ykxw gksrk gSA " " 13- DysesUVl o okgu Lokeh }kjk is'k U;kf;d] n`"V;Urksa dqekjh oUnuk ( mijksDr m)rZ ) o ujs'k vkfn ( mijksDr m)rZ ) esa chek ikWfylh Act Liability only gks] ;g ckr mu dslksa ds rF;ksa ls Li"V ugha gS egsUnz flag mijksDr m)rZ okys dsl esa fdlh oSu esa ;k=k dj jgs yksx fe= ds :i esa ;k=k dj jgs FksA blfy, ekStwnk dsl ds rF;ksa dh fHkUurk gksus ds dkj.k mDr rhuksa ekeykr esa izfrikfnr fl)kUrksa ls DysesUVl o okgu Lokeh dks enn ugha feyrh gSA " 5. I am in agreement with the findings recorded by the MACT. The findings recorded by the MACT cannot be said to be perverse. The award passed by the MACT is just and proper and no interference is called for in the award passed by the MACT. The appeal being devoid of merit stands rejected. 6. With the above observations this misc. appeal stands rejected.Appeal dismissed. *******