JUDGMENT : Mahesh Chandra Sharma, J. These appeals have been filed against the common judgment and award dated 18-9-2014 passed by learned Judge, MACT, Baran and these appeals are being decided by this common judgment. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the claimants had filed the claim petition before the concerned Tribunal claiming compensation on account of death of one Ram Swaroop S/o Gulab Chand and Smt. Tulsan W/o Ram Swaroop. The claimants are the LRs. of deceased. As per claim petition, accident occurred on 6-11-1999 on Kelwara Samrania Road near Pahari village. The cause of accident was the collision of the jeep against the Wall of the Puliya (bridge). The registration number of Jeep was RJ-20C-8119. The accident occurred at 11.00 p.m. in the night due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the vehicle who too was died in the accident. Thereafter FIR No. 170/1999 was instituted by one Ramesh Chand. 3. Notices of the claim petition were issued, reply was also filed, issues were framed and after hearing all the parties, the learned Tribunal passed the impugned judgment and award dated 14-1-2003 whereby the Insurance Company was given right of recovery against the appellant. Against the said award dated 14-1-2003, the appellant preferred four Civil Misc. Appeals before this Court, and the co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 8-9-2011 decided all the appeals and remanded back the matter to the concerned Tribunal for re-deciding issue Nos. 3 and 3A afresh. In pursuance of order dated 8-9-2011, all the parties appeared before the learned Tribunal, and after hearing to them, the learned Tribunal decided issue Nos. 3 and 3A afresh vide award dated 18-9-2014. 4. Against the impugned judgment and award dated 18-9-2014, the appellants again preferred these appeals before this Court. 5. Learned counsel for the appellants has contained that the award dated 18-9-2014 passed by the Tribunal is illegal and based on surmises and conjectures. It is also contended that the fact of payment of the fare or travelling in the jeep has neither been pleaded in the claim petition nor proved in evidence. 5. Learned counsel for the appellants has contained that the award dated 18-9-2014 passed by the Tribunal is illegal and based on surmises and conjectures. It is also contended that the fact of payment of the fare or travelling in the jeep has neither been pleaded in the claim petition nor proved in evidence. Thus, the appellant is not liable for payment of any compensation and without prejudice to it, it is contended that in absence of such pleading and proof, the statute of the passengers at the most can be considered to be that of gratituous passengers and in such circumstances, Insurance Company is liable for the payment of the compensation. 6. It has also been contended that the fact of consent and knowledge of the owner appellant has neither been pleaded nor proved in evidence by the claimants or the Insurance Company to the extent that the fare was given and taken to and by the driver or the driver was authorised by the appellant to charge any fare or that the driver had taken any fare with consent and knowledge of the appellant. 7. It has further been contended that the fact pertaining to the jeep for the benefit of the owner under his employment by the driver with his knowledge and consent has neither been pleaded nor proved by the claimants. 8. He has drawn attention of this Court towards important ground (e) of the appeal, which is reproduced as under : "(e) That the learned Tribunal has failed to appreciate this aspect of the case that after the remand of the matter, the appellant had examined himself as well as one Ramesh Chand the author of the FIR. No evidence contrary to this evidence was lead by the Insurance Company. From the statements of these witnesses it was quite clear that the jeep was being used by the appellant exclusively for his personal use and he was neither using this jeep either for commercial purpose or for carrying passengers by taking fare. Even on the day of accident the jeep was taken by his driver to drop some of his known persons to Shahbad while returning back from Shahbad, he had given lift to some persons as the tyre of the tractor trolley in which they were travelling was punctured. Driver did not charge any fare from these persons. Even on the day of accident the jeep was taken by his driver to drop some of his known persons to Shahbad while returning back from Shahbad, he had given lift to some persons as the tyre of the tractor trolley in which they were travelling was punctured. Driver did not charge any fare from these persons. More particularly he was not authorise to charge any fare from any one while carrying them in the jeep. A perusal of the insurance policy would also make it clear that carrying passengers in the jeep without hire and reward was allowed. In these circumstances there was not any breach of policy condition on behalf of the appellant and as such the risk of these persons being carded in the jeep was covered in the policy. Hence no right of recovery could have been given to the Insurance Company against the appellant. Hence the finding of Issue Nos. 3 and 3A deserves to be quashed and set aside." 9. In addition to above, it has also been contended that the claimants have not proved that driver was in employment of the appellant. It is also submitted that Rs. 400/- as additional premium has been charged in the policy and, as such, it was a comprehensive policy in which additional premium for eight passengers was charged. It has also been contended that the Insurance Company is wholly liable for paying compensation. The evidence of NAW-1 Ramesh Chand has not been considered by the Tribunal while passing the impugned award. Hence award dated 18-9-2014 deserves to be set aside. 10. On the other hand, Mr. Rishipal Agrawal, is directed to accept notice on behalf of respondent-Ins. Company. Hence, he accepts notice and ready to argue the matter. 11. He has contended that the award passed by the learned Tribunal is just and proper. The learned Tribunal has rightly deeded all the issues especially issue Nos. 3 and 3A in accordance with law. It has been contended that the learned Tribunal has considered the statement of material witnesses ,W-3 Prem Chand, AW-4 Badam Bai, AW-6 Balram etc. and all of them have stated that they obtained the tickets and gave money. Hence no interference is required at this stage in the impugned award dated 18-9-2014. 12. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgment and award dated 18-9-2014. and all of them have stated that they obtained the tickets and gave money. Hence no interference is required at this stage in the impugned award dated 18-9-2014. 12. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgment and award dated 18-9-2014. I am in agreement with the relevant paras/findings arrived it by the learned Tribunal, which are reproduced as under : ^^nksuksa i{kksa dks lquk x;k ,oa i=koyh o izLrqr uthjksa dk voyksdu fd;k x;kA i=koyh ij miyC/k izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ dk ;fn voyksdu fd;k tkos rks ;g rF; izdV gksrk gS fd lokfj;k NksM+us ds fy, 'kkgkckn x;k FkkA blls loZizFke rks ;g rF; Li"V gksrk gS fd thi dk iz;ksx lokfj;ka NksM+us ds fy, fd;k x;k FkkA okilh esa vkrs le; tc thi [kkyh Fkh rc jkLrs esa V~sDVj iapj gks tkus ds dkj.k V~sDVj dh lokfj;k jksM+ ij [kM+h Fkh] ftudks thi pkyd us fdjk;k ysdj thi esa fcBk;k] fdUrq vkxs pydj ;g thi nq?kZVukxzLr gks xbZA fdjk;k ysus ds rF; dks xokg izsepan ,0MCyw0 3 us viuh ftjg esa Li"V :i ls Lohdkj fd;k gS fd thi esa dqy 14 yksx ml le; cSBs Fks] ge dqf'k;kjk ls dsyokM+k vk jgs FksA fdjk;k geus 5&5 :i;s fn;s FksA gekjh 7 lokjh Fkh fdjk;s ls ge cSBs FksA blh izdkj xokg ,0MCyw0 4 cknkeckbZ ds c;kuksa ds vuqlkj thi esa eSa fdjk;s ls cSBh Fkh] fdUrq fdjk;k fdruk fy;k irk ughaA thi esa 6&7 vkneh cSBs Fks] oks Hkh fdjk;s ls cSBs FksA gekjs feyus okys dh thi ugha FkhA xokg ,0MCyw 6 cyjke us Hkh viuh ftjg esa crk;k gS fd thi esa 10&12 lokfj;ka cSBh gqbZ FkhA geus fdjk;s ds ,d lokjh ds 5&5] 7&7 :i;s fn;s FksA bl rjg ;g rdZ fo)ku vfHkHkk"kd vizkFkhZ la0 1 dk ekuus ;ksX; ugha gS fd oDr nq?kZVuk mDr thi esa lokfj;ksa ls fdjk;k ysdj ifjokgu ugha fd;k tk jgk gksA vr% tks uthj fo}ku vfHkHkk"kd vizkFkhZ la0 1 dh vksj ls izLrqr dh xbZ gS] og bl ekeys esa ykxw ugha gksrh gSA tgka rd vfrfjDr izhfe;e 400@& :i;s fy;s tkus dk iz'u gS] bl lUnHkZ esa esjk ;g vfHker gS fd fdjk;s ls lokfj;k fcBkus dk izhfe;e chek da0 }kjk ugha fy;k x;k FkkA ;fn dkbZ ifjokj&tu thi esa cSBrk gS rks muds fy, ,d&,d yk[k :i;s dk izhfe;e chek da0 }kjk fy;k x;k FkkA 9 khV ikl thi Fkh rFkk chek Hkh izkbosV dkj dk fd;k x;k FkkA vr% ;g rdZ Hkh Lohdkj fd;s tkus ;ksX; ugha gS fd chek da0 }kjk vfrfjDr izhfe;e fy;s tkus ds dkj.k mDr nq?kZVuk ds fy;s {kfriwfrZ jkf'k dh vnk;xh dk nkf;Ro chek da0 dk gh curk gSA lEiw.kZ lk{; ds vk/kkj ij bu DysEl esa {kfriwfrZ jkf'k dh vnk;xh dk nkf;Ro okgu thi ds Lokeh vizkFkhZ la0 1 dk gh curk gSA vr% rudh la[;k&3 o 3&, chek da0 ds i{k esa fuf.kZr dh tkrh gSA vr% i=koyh ij miyC/k lk{; ds mDr foospu ,oa fo'ys"k.k ds mijkUr ;g lkfcr gS fd oDr nq?kZVuk thi esa {kerk ls vf/kd lokfj;ka fcBkdj thi dk ifjogu fdjk;k ysdj fd;k tk jgk Fkk] bl dkj.k chek ikWfylh dh egRoiw.kZ 'krksZa dk mYya?ku gksus ls chek da0 mDr DysEl ds izkFkhZx.k dks {kfriwfrZ jkf'k dh vnk;xh ds fy, nkf;Ro/khu ugha gS vr% tks jkf'k DysEl ds isVs chek da0 ds }kjk Hkqxrku dh tk pqdh gS] og jkf'k thi ds ekfyd vizkFkhZ la0 1 cyohj flag ls Hkqxrku dh fnukad ls e; 7 izfr'kr okf"kZd dh nj ls chek da0 izkIr djus dh vf/kdkjh gSA** 13. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, as also the findings/observations quoted hereinabove, the learned Tribunal is found to have dealt with each and every aspect of the matter, and has rightly passed the impugned judgment and award. I am in unison with the findings arrived at by the learned Tribunal. Hence, I do not think it just and proper to interfere with the impugned award dated 18-9-2014 passed by the Tribunal, and thus all the appeals having no force, are hereby dismissed after confirming the judgment and award dated 18-9-2014 passed by the learned Tribunal. Appeals dismissed.