JUDGMENT : M.R. SHAH, J. 1. As common question of law and facts arise in this group of appeals with respect to the liability of the insurer-appellant herein-New India Insurance Co. Ltd.-original opponent No.3, all these appeals are decided and disposed off by this common judgment and order. 2. All these appeals are preferred by the original opponent No.3-insurer of the Jeep involved in the accident-original opponent No.3-New India Insurance Co. Ltd. challenging the impugned common judgment and award passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxi.), Sabarkantha, at Himatnagar, (hereinafter referred to as "Tribunal") in Motor Accident Claim Petition Nos.1022/2000, 1023/2000, 1261/2000, 1287/2000, 1509/2000, 1510/2000, 2138/2000 (Main) and 574/2001 insofar as holding the insurer of the jeep involved in the accident liable to pay the compensation. 2.1. All the original claimants were as such travelling in the private jeep/vehicle. While they were travelling as passengers in the jeep-private vehicle, jeep turned turtle and all the original claimants who were passengers in the said private vehicle sustained injuries. Therefore, the original claimants-insurer filed the respective claim petitions before the learned Tribunal claiming the compensation. 2.2. That it was the case on behalf of the original claimants that all of them were travelling in the jeep as gratuitous passengers and therefore, the insurer was liable to pay the compensation and/or indemnify the amount of compensation. 2.3. All these appeals were vehemently opposed by the appellant herein-original opponent No.3-insurer specifically stating that as the vehicle was a private vehicle and all the claimants were travelling in the said private vehicle/jeep un-authorisedly and on payment of fare and therefore, in breach of the terms of the policy and the insurance policy was a private vehicle policy, the insurance company-insurer is not liable to pay the compensation. That not accepting the defence of the insurer, by impugned common judgment and award the learned Tribunal has held the appellant-insurer also liable to pay the compensation observing that the insurer has failed to prove that the original claimants-passengers have paid any fare to the driver. 2.4. That thereafter by impugned judgment and award the learned Tribunal partly allowed the respective claim petitions and awarded the amount towards compensation to the respective claimants as under: Sr. No. Claim Petition No. Amount of compensation (Rs.) 1. 1022/2000 41,300/- 2. 1023/2000 35,900/- 3. 1261/2000 30,000/- 4. 1287/2000 35,900/- 5. 1509/2000 26,400/- 6. 1510/2000 57,100/- 7. 2138/2000 25,000/- 8. 2.4. That thereafter by impugned judgment and award the learned Tribunal partly allowed the respective claim petitions and awarded the amount towards compensation to the respective claimants as under: Sr. No. Claim Petition No. Amount of compensation (Rs.) 1. 1022/2000 41,300/- 2. 1023/2000 35,900/- 3. 1261/2000 30,000/- 4. 1287/2000 35,900/- 5. 1509/2000 26,400/- 6. 1510/2000 57,100/- 7. 2138/2000 25,000/- 8. 574/2001 22,300/- Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned common judgment and award passed by the learned Tribunal more particularly in holding the insurer liable to pay the compensation to the original claimants, the appellant herein-original opponent No.3-insurer has preferred the present First Appeals. 3. Shri Sunil Parikh, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the insurer has vehemently submitted that the learned Tribunal has materially erred in holding the insurer liable to pay the compensation. It is submitted that while not accepting the defence of the insurer and while holding the insurer liable to pay the compensation, the learned Tribunal has not properly appreciated and/or considered even the deposition of the respective claimants. It is submitted that if the learned Tribunal would have properly appreciated the deposition of the respective claimants, in that case the learned Tribunal would not have held the insurer liable to pay the compensation. It is submitted that most of the claimants have admitted in the cross-examination that they were travelling as passengers in the private jeep/vehicle by paying the FIR. It is submitted that all the claimants have specifically admitted in the cross-examination that neither they were knowing the driver nor the owner of the jeep. It is submitted that the respective claimants have also admitted in the cross-examination that they were standing on the highway near Ambaji-Ambaji road and that they were waiting for the vehicle and at that stage one jeep came and the driver was shouting for the passengers and therefore, they boarded in the jeep. It is submitted that therefore, the only conclusion could be that all the claimants were travelling as passengers on paying fare and that un-authorisedly. It is submitted that therefore, the only conclusion could be that all the claimants were travelling as passengers on paying fare and that un-authorisedly. It is submitted that therefore as the respective claimants were travelling as passengers on paying the fare and the jeep/vehicle was a private vehicle and the policy was a private vehicle policy and as per the terms and conditions carrying passengers for hire and reward was not permitted, the learned Tribunal has materially erred in holding the insurer liable to pay the compensation. In support of his above submissions, Shri Parikh, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the insurer has relied upon the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Jaysukhlal Maganlal Doshi & Ors. reported in 2013 (3) GLR 2283 . Making above submissions and relying upon above decision, it is requested to allow the present First Appeals. 4. All these appeals are vehemently opposed by Shri R.K. Mansuri, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the original claimants. It is submitted by Shri Mansuri, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the original claimants that in the facts and circumstances of the case more particularly when the insurer has failed to prove that the original claimants were travelling in the jeep for hire or reward and/or on payment of fare, the learned Tribunal has not committed any error in holding the insurer liable to pay the compensation. 4.1. It is further submitted that even in the present case the driver of the jeep has not examined and has not stepped into the witness box. It is submitted that therefore if the driver of the jeep would have been examined even by the insurer in that case the truth would have come out whether respective claimants were travelling for hire or reward or not. Therefore, it is submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case no error has been committed by the learned Tribunal in holding the insurer liable to pay the compensation. No other submissions have been made. Making above submissions it is requested to dismiss all these appeals. 4.2. Heard learned advocates appearing for respective parties at length. Perused the impugned common judgment and award passed by the learned Tribunal and re-appreciated the entire evidence on record. I have gone through the deposition of all the respective claimants. No other submissions have been made. Making above submissions it is requested to dismiss all these appeals. 4.2. Heard learned advocates appearing for respective parties at length. Perused the impugned common judgment and award passed by the learned Tribunal and re-appreciated the entire evidence on record. I have gone through the deposition of all the respective claimants. The sole question which is posed for consideration of this Court is with respect to the liability of the insurer to pay the compensation. It is not in dispute that as such the jeep in which the respective claimants were travelling was a private vehicle. It is also not in dispute that even the insurance policy was a private vehicle policy. It is also not in dispute that under the insurance policy and as per the terms and conditions of the insurance policy in a private vehicle the passengers for hire and reward was not permitted. It is the case on behalf of the insurer that all the respective claimants were travelling as passengers for hire and reward and therefore, they were travelling un-authorisedly and therefore, there was a breach of the terms of the policy and therefore, the insurer is not liable to pay the compensation. On the other hand it is the case on behalf of the original claimants and so pleaded in the claim petitions the respective claimants were travelling as gratuitous passengers. It is the case on behalf of the original Page 5 of 7 HC-NIC Page 5 of 7 Created On Fri Feb 19 14:14:52 IST 2016 C/FA/5178/2007 JUDGMENT claimants that respective claimants were not travelling as passengers in the private jeep for hire or reward. However, considering the deposition of the respective claimants more particularly their cross-examinations, it has come on record that all the claimants were standing on the highway near Ambaji town. All of them were waiting for the vehicle. At that time the jeep in question came and that the driver of the jeep was shouting for the passengers. That thereafter the respective claimants boarded in the jeep and were travelling in the jeep in question. Most of the claimants have specifically admitted that for travelling even the fare was also fixed. Some of them have stated that as they became semi-unconscious the fare was not paid but the fare was to be paid. That thereafter the respective claimants boarded in the jeep and were travelling in the jeep in question. Most of the claimants have specifically admitted that for travelling even the fare was also fixed. Some of them have stated that as they became semi-unconscious the fare was not paid but the fare was to be paid. It is also required to be noted at this stage that even respective claimants have specifically admitted that none of them were knowing the driver and/or even the owner of the jeep. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the case on behalf of the original claimants that they were travelling as gratuitous passengers and not for hire and/or reward cannot be accepted or believed. Considering the cross-examination of most of the witnesses when they have specifically admitted that for travelling even the fare was fixed, the respective passengers were travelling for hire and reward. Under the circumstances, when the respective original claimants were travelling in a private jeep for hire and/or reward and therefore un-authorisedly and therefore, there was a breach of the terms of the policy, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Tribunal has committed error in holding the appellant insurer liable to pay the compensation. At this stage decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Jaysukhlal Maganlal Doshi (Supra) is required to be referred to. In the identical facts and circumstances of the case, the Division Bench of this Court has quashed and set aside the award passed by the learned Tribunal by which the insurer was held liable to pay the compensation. 4.3. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, impugned common judgment and award passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxi.), Sabarkantha, at Himatnagar in Motor Accident Claim Petition Nos.1022/2000, 1023/2000, 1261/2000, 1287/2000, 1509/2000, 1510/2000, 2138/2000 (Main) and 574/2001 insofar as holding the appellant insurance company cannot be sustained and the same deserve to be quashed and set aside. 5. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, all these First Appeals succeed. Impugned common judgment and award passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxi.), Sabarkantha, at Himatnagar in Motor Accident Claim Petition Nos.1022/2000, 1023/2000, 1261/2000, 1287/2000, 1509/2000, 1510/2000, 2138/2000 (Main) and 574/2001 insofar as holding the appellant-insurer liable to pay the compensation are hereby quashed and set aside. Impugned common judgment and award passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxi.), Sabarkantha, at Himatnagar in Motor Accident Claim Petition Nos.1022/2000, 1023/2000, 1261/2000, 1287/2000, 1509/2000, 1510/2000, 2138/2000 (Main) and 574/2001 insofar as holding the appellant-insurer liable to pay the compensation are hereby quashed and set aside. On quashing and setting aside the impugned common judgment and award passed by the learned Tribunal so far as the appellant insurer is concerned, any amount deposited by the appellant-insurance company, deposited pursuant to the common judgment and award passed by the learned Tribunal, the appellant-insurance company shall be entitled to get return/refund of the same and same may be paid to the appellant from the FDRs if any lying with the learned Tribunal with proportionate interest and/or from original claimants if at all any amount is withdrawn by the original claimants. All these appeals are allowed to the aforesaid extent. In the facts and circumstances of the case there shall be no order as to costs.