Judgment Suresh Kait, J. 1. The present appeal has been preferred against the impugned award dated 03.08.2006, whereby Ld. Tribunal has awarded compensation for an amount of Rs.5,00,000/-with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the Claim Petition till realization of the amount. 2. Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that the offending vehicle was a private car (TATA SUMO) and was being used as a commercial vehicle at the time of accident. To this effect, R3W2, Sh. Ajit Singh, Investigator of the insurance company has filed his report dated 27.01.2003 on the basis of the statements of the passengers travelling in the offending vehicle. 3. Ld. Counsel further submits that Mr. Rajinder Singh, Adv. Appeared on behalf of respondent no.2, i.e., owner of the offending vehicle, however, he did not cross-examine R3W2 and led any evidence thereto. 4. Perusal of the trial court record shows that investigator of the Insurance Company has filed his report Ex.R3W2/1 and the statements of Karamveer, Babu Ram, Purushottam Sharma and Ms. Mamta, Ex. R3W2/2, R3W2/3, R3W2/4 and R3W2/5 respectively which were attached with the report. 5. The said witness was cross-examined by the claimants, wherein he deposed that he went to the house of Karamveer, but he did not remember the address. He also did not remember where Purushottam Sharma was staying. 6. After going through the statements Ex.R3W2/2 to R3W2/5, the fact that the offending vehicle was handed over to be plied as Taxi through the Bansal Travels, Durgapuri Chowk is doubtful. The Investigator had neither examined the owner, nor produced the statement of the Bansal Travels or the representative of such tour operator. No evidence from the tour operator was adduced on behalf of the appellant. Moreover, the appellant did not examine any witness. The report of the investigator was based upon the statements of co-passengers. None of the said co-passengers was examined to prove that the said vehicle was being plied on a commercial basis. 7. In view of above facts, I do not find any discrepancy in the order passed by the Ld. Tribunal. 8. Accordingly, the instant appeal is dismissed. MAC APP. 871 of 2006. 9. Consequently, the statutory amount be released in favour of the appellant. CM No. 14608 of 2006 (stay) Dismissed as infructuous.