JUDGMENT : Vivek Agarwal, J. 1. This appeal has been filed by the insurance company being aggrieved by award dated 15.7.2004 passed by the Court of Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Gohad, Distt. Bhind, in Claim Case No. 26 of 2003, whereby the Tribunal has allowed the claim application and has held the owner, driver and the insurance company, i.e., respondent Nos. 1 to 3 in the claim case, jointly and severally liable to satisfy the claim. 2. It is the contention of learned counsel for the appellant that accident in question had taken place on 14.6.2003 at 8 a.m. when Tularam was sitting in the jeep as fare-paying passenger and was travelling from Mehgaon to Bhind. It is submitted that due to negligence of the driver of the jeep bearing No. MP 06-B 6339 as it was driven rashly and negligently, Tularam fell down from the jeep and died. It is submitted that Jagdish, PW 2, in his deposition has admitted that he had paid a fare of Rs. 7 to the jeep owner and he was not sure whether any fare was given by Tularam or not. Pointing out such fact, it is submitted that since the policy in question is a private car policy with act liability, therefore, there is breach of insurance policy and for breach of such insurance policy, insurance company cannot be held responsible to compensate the claimants and accordingly prays for exoneration of the insurance company from the liability to satisfy the claim. 3. This fact is not disputed even by the Claims Tribunal that a report was lodged against the driver of the jeep bearing No. MP 06-B 6339 at Police Station Mehgaon, registering Crime No. 215/2003 under section 304-A of Indian Penal Code pointing out that jeep was being driven rashly and negligently resulting in death of one of the occupants of the jeep, namely, Tularam. However, Claims Tribunal has held that from the evidence of the appellant, it is nowhere revealed that jeep was being driven for hire or reward. This is contrary to the evidence which has been adduced by Jagdish, PW 2, that he had paid a fare of Rs. 7 for travelling in the jeep. 4. Recently, the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur in the case of New India Assurance Co. This is contrary to the evidence which has been adduced by Jagdish, PW 2, that he had paid a fare of Rs. 7 for travelling in the jeep. 4. Recently, the High Court of Bombay at Nagpur in the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Avinash, has held that where there is breach of the terms and conditions of the policy by carrying fare-paying passengers in the jeep at the time of accident, it will be construed to be breach of terms and conditions of the policy. Similarly, in the case of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Thukarama Adappa, 2007 ACJ 1497 (Karnataka), it has been held that in case of fare-paying passengers insurance company is not liable to pay any compensation for injury sustained or death caused to such fare-paying passengers when the vehicle meets with an accident. 5. There is substance in the argument advanced by learned counsel for the appellant that policy in question was with act liability and is a private car policy, therefore, if passengers were taken by charging fare, then there was breach of policy and, therefore, liability to pay compensation could not have been fastened on the insurance company. This court is in agreement with such argument advanced by learned counsel for the insurance company and, therefore, insurance company is exonerated from its liability and to that extent appeal is allowed. However, it is made clear that in case insurance company has already paid the claim amount, then it shall be free to recover it from the owner and driver of the vehicle in question, else the claimants will be entitled to recover it from owner and driver. With the aforesaid, appeal is disposed of.