JUDGMENT Mr. Jitendra Chauhan, J.:- The present appeal has been filed by the owner of the offending vehicle, assailing the impugned Award dated 28.5.1999, passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Hisar (for short ‘the Tribunal’), vide which, a sum of Rs.3,67,000/- has been awarded as compensation to the claimants, and the appellant alongwith the driver has been held liable jointly and severally. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the appellant has been wrongly held liable to indemnify the award, by the learned Tribunal, on the ground that the vehicle was being used against the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. The vehicle was insured as a private vehicle at the time of accident. It was not being used for hire and reward purpose. He further submits that the vehicle was carrying marriage party and no fair was charged from them. There is no evidence on record that the accident occurred due rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending jeep. Therefore, the appellant is not liable to pay the compensation. 3. Despite service, none appeared on behalf of the respondents. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and perused the case file carefully. 5. The learned Tribunal framed issue No.1 “Whether Balwan died as a result of rash and negligent of driving? OPP. Ramesh and Dilbag, appeared as PW3 and PW4 respectively, were travelling as passengers in the offending jeep. They have clearly stated that the jeep was being driven in a rash and negligent manner as the driver could not control the jeep due to high speed and rashness, it turned turtle. The learned Tribunal decided this issue in favour of the claimant and against the driver and owner. Further it has specifically come in the statement of PW2 Harchand, who was traveling in the offending jeep at the time of accident, that the jeep was booked by Rajmal, who had gone to Panihari for booking the jeep for marriage party. The same was corroborated by PW3 Ramesh and PW4 Dilbagh Singh. In view of the same, it is proved on record that the offending vehicle i.e. jeep was being used for hire and reward purpose. 6. The same was corroborated by PW3 Ramesh and PW4 Dilbagh Singh. In view of the same, it is proved on record that the offending vehicle i.e. jeep was being used for hire and reward purpose. 6. In view of the above, this Court finds no illegality or perversity in the well reasoned findings given by the learned Tribunal in the impugned Award with regard to the accident or the liability. Accordingly, the present appeal is dismissed. ——————————