JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal has been filed against the judgment and award dated 17-3-2001 passed by MACT, Kekri, whereby the learned Tribunal decreed an amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- in favour of claimant respondent and against the appellant. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 15-8-1996 at about 2.15 p.m., when the claimant was going in Jeep No. RJ-01-C-2148, then one km. away from the road of village Dabrela, the said Jeep overturned and the claimant sustained injuries in her back-bone. 3. Thereafter FIR was lodged, claim petition was filed, notices were issued, written statement was filed, issues were framed, evidence was recorded by the learned Tribunal. After hearing the arguments, the learned Tribunal decreed the amount, as mentioned above. Against the said award, the non claimant-appellant has filed this appeal. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant Mr. J.P. Gupta has contended that the impugned award dated 17-3-2001 passed by the learned Tribunal is absolutely illegal, perverse to the facts and material available on record. Learned counsel has further drawn the attention of this Court that the judgment of the Tribunal regarding issue Nos. 3 and 4 is contrary to the facts and material on record and against the law. He has further contended that the claimant Parsi herself categorically stated on oath that no fare was charged. Thus, no case of the alleged breach of policy has been made out. He has further contended that the person who alleged to be taken the vehicle on fare was not produced before the learned Tribunal, therefore, all the evidence produced before the learned Tribunal is hearsay and does not deserve to be believed. He has further contended that PW-2 Jagdish has categorically stated in his cross-examination that he allowed to sit Parsi sympathetically and no fare was charged from her, therefore, the learned Tribunal has committed gross error of fact by holding that the vehicle was being used for carrying passenger. He has further contended that in the case of New India Assurance Company Ltd. v. Satpal, AIR 2000 SC 235 , it has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that under the new Act, an insurance policy covering third party risk is not required to exclude the gratuitous passenger. The judgment of the Apex Court squarely covers the controversy. Thus, the impugned award is liable to be quashed. The judgment of the Apex Court squarely covers the controversy. Thus, the impugned award is liable to be quashed. In support of his contentions, he has placed reliance on the following judgments : i) S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 2933/2009 Navratan alias Noratmal & Ors. v. Hanuman & others, Decided on 7th December, 2011 . ii) S. B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1425/2008 Bhoja Singh & Ors., v. Nainu Singh & another. Decided on 15th February, 2011 . 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents Mr. Virendra Agarwal has drawn the attention of this Court on para No. 11 of the impugned award of the learned Tribunal, which is reproduced as under : (Vernacular matter omitted .... Ed. ) 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the relevant material on record including the impugned award. 7. The learned Tribunal is found to have rightly discussed the entire evidence emerging on record and passed the impugned judgment and award. 8. Looking to the entire facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any ground to interfere in the impugned award passed by the learned Tribunal. It is just and apposite and does not suffer from any legal flaw. 9. For the reasons stated above, the appeal filed by the appellant fails and the same being bereft of any substance deserve to be dismissed, which stands dismissed accordingly. 10. Consequently, stay application, filed herewith does not survive and the same also stands dismissed.Appeal dismissed. *******