JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal has been filed by the Insurance Company against the judgment/award dated 25.7.2007 passed by Additional District Judge, Khetri Distt. Jhunjhunu and MACT in Claims Case No. 8/2004. 2. Brief facts of the case relevant for disposal of the appeal are that claimant was travelling in Jeep No.RJ-18-C-1376. The jeep collided with the tree and the claimant sustained injuries. Claim petition has been filed which was allowed by the Tribunal and the appellant Insurance Company has been made liable. 3. The contention of the appellant is that the Insurance Company is not liable as the vehicle was used for commercial purposes and it was used for carrying passengers on hire and reward and due to breach of condition policy, the Insurance Company is not liable. Further contention of the appellant is that without any proof the income has been assessed as 3,000/- and for partial disability, 100% amount has been awarded, in spite of the fact that doctor has not been examined and the injured has suffered only 03% disability, the Insurance Company should not be held liable and in alternative, the compensation should be reduced proportionately.Per contra, the contention of the respondents is that there is no infirmity in the impugned judgment. The claimant was not passenger on hire and reward and in the alternative, he has prayed for liberty to the Insurance Company to recover the amount. 4. Hear the learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned award as well as the original record of the case. 5. The first contention of the Insurance Company was that the Jeep was carrying passengers at the time of the accident and it was driven in violation of terms and conditions of the policy. It is not in dispute that the Jeep was insured for Private Car Policy. FIR, EX.1 has been relied upon by the respondent himself where it has been specifically stated that apart from Jagdish, Rohitash and Umraro other passengers were also there. AW/1 Jagdish has stated that Sita Ram was the owner of the jeep but in cross-examination, he has stated that Jeep owner was Udai Singh, he has denied the fact that he was paid passenger in the Jeep. AW/1 Jagdish has stated that Sita Ram was the owner of the jeep but in cross-examination, he has stated that Jeep owner was Udai Singh, he has denied the fact that he was paid passenger in the Jeep. AW/2 Santosh has categorically accepts in his cross-examination that Jeep was plied on rent but they have not paid the rent as they were neighbours, hence in view of Ex.1, which is an admitted document on the part of the claimants simplicity proved that the Jeep was carrying passengers at the time of the accident and this fact has been admitted by the evidence of AW/2 Santosh, hence the court below has erred in holding that policy condition has not been violated and Issue No.3 has wrongly been decided in favour of claimant which stands decided in favour of appellant, holding that Jeep was driven in violation of condition policy, carrying passengers at the time of the accident and the claimants were gratuitous passenger in the vehicle whereas Jeep was insured for Private Car Policy and due to violation of policy. Insurance Company could not be held liable and it stands exonerated in view of the law laid down in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Meena Variyal & ors., 2007(2) WLC (SC) Civil 41 : 2007 (2) TAC 417 (SC) wherein it has been categorically held after relying upon the law laid down in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Asha Rani & ors., 2003(1) WLC (SC) Civil 509 : (2003) 2 SCC 223 and United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Shimla v. Tilak Singh & ors., 2006(1) WLC (SC) Civil 766 : (2006) 4 SCC 404 held as under: 15. In New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Asha Rani and others this Court had occasion to consider the scope of the expression "any person" occurring in Section 147 of the Act. This Court held: "that the meaning of the words "any person" must also be attributed having regard to the context in which they have been used i.e. "a third party". Ltd. v. Asha Rani and others this Court had occasion to consider the scope of the expression "any person" occurring in Section 147 of the Act. This Court held: "that the meaning of the words "any person" must also be attributed having regard to the context in which they have been used i.e. "a third party". Keeping in view the provisions of the 1988 Act we are of the opinion that as the provisions thereof did not enjoin any statutory liability on the owner of a vehicle to get his vehicle insured for any passenger travelling in a goods vehicle, the insurers would not be liable there for." In other words, this Court clearly held that the apparently wide words "any person" are qualified by the setting in which they occur and that "any person" is to be understood as a third party. 16. In United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Shimla v. Tilak Singh & Ors. , this Court made 3 survey of the prior decisions and discountenanced an attempt to confine the ratio of Asha Rani (supra). This Court stated that although the observations in Asha Rani were in connection with carrying passengers in a goods vehicle, the same would apply with equal force also to gratuitous passengers in any other vehicle. This Court also noticed that the decision to the contrary in New India Assurance Co. v. Satpal Singh [ (2000) 1 S.C.C. 237 ] was specifically overruled in Asha Rani's case (supra). In other words, it was re-emphasised that a policy in terms of Section 147 of the Act is not intended to cover persons other than third parties." 6. It has also been held that the Insurance Company is not liable to indemnify the insured and also not obliged to satisfy the award of the Tribunal and then to take recourse to the insured, the owner of the vehicle. Further reliance has been placed on Hari Singh v. Smt. Phool Wati & ors., 2010 RAR 321 (Raj.) where the Insurance Company has been exonerated from the liability. 7. Further reliance has been placed on Hari Singh v. Smt. Phool Wati & ors., 2010 RAR 321 (Raj.) where the Insurance Company has been exonerated from the liability. 7. As regards the compensation, the contention of the appellant is that no documentary evidence as regard age of the injured has been placed on record but Ex.7 injury report has been placed on record which shows the age of the injured, nothing has been placed on record to rebut this fact and the court below has rightly held the age of the injured as 35 years. 8. The other contention of the appellant is that the income of the injured has been assessed on higher side. It has been stated in the claim petition that the injured was a clerk in private school getting Rs. 3,000/- as salary and salary certificate Ex.111 has been placed on record in spite of this, the court below has assessed the income as Rs. 3,000/- which is error apparent on the face of record. Document Ex.111 has not been proved by the evidence of the employer and in absence of any documentary proof, the Court below should assess the income on the basis of minimum wages which was 68/- per day for skilled person hence looking to the minimum wages prevalent at the relevant time the income of the injured is assessed 2100/- instead of 3000/-p.m. 9. The claim petition has been filed with the averment that the injured remained unconscious for two-three months, he lost his memory, he is mentally imbalanced but all these facts proved to be false as the claimant Jagdish has been examined as AW/1 and no such demean or of the witnesses has been noted by the Tribunal that he is mentally derailed or he has lost his memory or he could not speak, hence on the face of it, it can be concluded that exaggerated claim has been filed with false assertions by the claimants as per Ex.114 disability certificate the injured has suffered only 3% disability and Ex. 114 is only an interim certificate according to which the injured has suffered only 3% disability whereas the Tribunal has assessed the loss of income as 5,76,000/- which is exorbitant and could not be sustained and liable to be reduced. 10. 114 is only an interim certificate according to which the injured has suffered only 3% disability whereas the Tribunal has assessed the loss of income as 5,76,000/- which is exorbitant and could not be sustained and liable to be reduced. 10. The contention of the respondents is that the Insurance Company be directed to pay the amount and to recover it from the owner and reliance has been placed on S. lyyapan v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & ors., 1 2013(2) WLC (SC) Civil 293 : (2013) 7 SCC 62 where the driver was not holding a valid license.In view of the above liberty has been given but as already held in view of the law laid down in Meena Variyal (supra), such liberty could not be s given. Further reliance has been placed on Ramchandrappa v. Manager, Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd., 2011(2) WLC (SC) Civil 476 : (2011) 13 SCC 236 where looking to the fact that definite evidence has been produced that injured was a collie and earning Rs. 4500/- per month calculation has been made. Here in the present case, income has not 1 been proved,hence income should be assessed on the basis of minimum wages. 11. The contention of the appellant is sound that looking to the age of the injured, multiplier of 15 should be applied in view of the law laid down in Sarla Verma (Smt.) & ors. v. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr., 1 2009(2) WLC (SC) Civil 323 : (2009) 6 SCC 121 . Hence, in the light of the above, the impugned award is liable to be modified in the terms that claimant is entitled for compensation for loss of income to the tune of Rs. 2100 x 15 x 12 x 3% which comes to Rs. 11,340/- whereas the Tribunal has assessed the loss of income as Rs. 5,76,000/- which is exorbitant and could not be sustained. However, the compensation on other head is confirmed.In view of the above, the appeal is allowed. The Insurance Company is exonerated from the liability to pay compensation to the claimants and the compensation is also reduced as above.Appeal Allowed. *******