RAFIQ, J.—Learned counsel for the appellant has raised two fold arguments. His first contention is that claimant Bhagwan Sahai was married son and therefore he cannot be dependent of the deceased. His second contention is that the jeep was being run for hire and reward. In this connection, he has referred to the statement of NAW1-Badri Prasad Sharma, Investigator. It is argued that Investigator in his report has reported that as per his enquiry, the jeep was hired by a third party for marriage purpose when the accident took place. 2. Learned counsel for respondent No.3-owner has opposed the appeal and argued that NAW1-Badri Prasad Sharma, Investigator has not given any specific evidence as to on what basis, he has made that report. He has not given name of any person from whom he got such information to say as to for whose benefit the jeep was hired. The fact of marriage itself has not been proved. Secondly, deceased was not a passenger in that jeep but it is alleged that he was sitting upon the jeep and he was thus a third party and this argument would not even otherwise be available to the learned counsel for the appellant insurance company. 3. Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the impugned award, I find that this court was inclined to issue notices to respondents No.3 alone and not to the claimant and to that extent, appeal of the appellant cannot be sustained and the first argument that the claimant being married and would not be taken to be dependent of the deceased, cannot be accepted. On second aspect also, appellant has failed to discharge their burden of proving that the jeep was being run for hire and reward. Compensation amount is Rs.2,72,000/- for the entire claim in which age of the deceased was 45 years and therefore such quantum cannot be said to be excessive or otherwise unreasonable. I do not find any force in the appeal. 4. The appeal is dismissed and the interim order is vacated.