JUDGMENT : A.J. DESAI, J. 1. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (“the Act” for short) is filed by the appellant-insurance company challenging the judgment and award dated 30.09.2010, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxi), Mehsana in Motor Accident Claims Petition No. 568 of 2006, wherein claim petition filed by the original claimants came to be allowed in part and compensation of Rs. 5,58,000/- was awarded with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till realization, with proportionate costs. 2. Brief facts, arising from the record, are as under: 2.1 On 25.06.2006, Natvarbhai Kanjibhai Patel was travelling in a Qualis car bearing registration No. GJ-2-R-5588. After ‘Shiradi’ darshan while returning they were going from Ahmedabad to Mehsana. The said Qualis car was owned by respondent No. 8 (original opponent no. 2) and driven by respondent No. 7 (original opponent no. 1). It was case of the original claimants that around 1:30 at night, when they reached near Rajpur village, while overtaking one truck, driver lost control over steering, because of which, the Qualis car turned turtle and resulted into the accident. Because of the said accident, Natvarbhai Kanjibhai Patel (hereinafter referred to as “the deceased”) sustained serious injuries and succumbed to the same. For the said accident, legal heirs of Natavarbhai, as original claimants filed claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, seeking compensation of Rs. 20,00,000/-. It is on record that one of the original claimant-wife of the deceased, expired during pendency of claim petition and therefore, legal heirs of the deceased were arrayed in the claim petition as applicant Nos. 1 to 6. 2.2 Upon filing of the claim petition, Notices were issued. Respondents appeared. Opponent Nos. 1 and 2 i.e. driver and owner of Qualis car filed their written statements below Exh.12 whereas opponent No. 3-Insurance company filed its written statement below Exh.21. It was case of the insurance company before the Tribunal that the deceased was traveling in a car hired by him after payment of fare and policy of Qualis car being not for hire and reward, the insurance company is not liable for any payment. There is breach of terms and conditions of the policy by the owner of vehicle and therefore, insurance company is not liable for payment of compensation. There is breach of terms and conditions of the policy by the owner of vehicle and therefore, insurance company is not liable for payment of compensation. 2.3 After hearing the parties and upon appreciation of oral and documentary evidence on record, Tribunal decided the issues as under: In relation to negligence, Tribunal held that accident occurred on account of sole negligence of driver of Qualis car and because of said negligence accident occurred and the deceased died. In relation to compensation, the Tribunal held that as the policy of insurance company was in existence for the period of accident and extra premium, covering the risk of passenger, being paid by the owner of Qualis car, legal heirs of the deceased are entitled for the payment of compensation. The Tribunal awarded total compensation of Rs. 5,58,000/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum, from the date of filing of claim petition till realisation, with proportionate costs. Tribunal held respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 i.e. driver, owner and insurance company of Qualis car, liable for payment of compensation. 3. Aggrieved by liability fastened on the insurance company of Qualis car, present appeal is filed by the appellant-insurance company challenging the impugned judgment and award of the Tribunal. 4. Heard learned advocate Mr. Sandip Shah, for the appellant-Insurance company and learned advocate Mr. Kamlesh Kotai, for respondent Nos. 2 to 6. Though served, respondent Nos. 7 and 8 (driver and owner of Quails car) chose not to appear. Issuance of policy and its operation at the time of accident has not been denied. Record and proceedings of the case have been secured and placed before this court for perusal. 5. Mr. Sandip Shah, learned advocate for the appellant submitted that judgment and award of the Tribunal is erroneous as Tribunal has erred in not considering that, the owner of Qualis car had used the car for hire purposes on payment of fare. The owner of the car had violated the terms of policy and therefore the appellant is not liable for payment of compensation as awarded. He further submitted that the deceased was traveling in the Qualis car, which was registered as private car and after paying fare to the owner of the Qualis car, he was traveling as a passenger. The owner of the car had violated the terms of policy and therefore the appellant is not liable for payment of compensation as awarded. He further submitted that the deceased was traveling in the Qualis car, which was registered as private car and after paying fare to the owner of the Qualis car, he was traveling as a passenger. As the deceased was traveling as a passenger on hire charges, there is a breach of terms and conditions of insurance policy and therefore, insurance company is not liable for the payment as awarded. He further submitted that Tribunal has also erred in observing that once the insurance company has accepted extra premium, they are liable to pay the compensation. In relation to other grounds raised in the memo of appeal for quantum of compensation awarded, he fairly submitted that, in view of the decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi and Others, (2017) 16 SCC 680 and Sarla Verma and Others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Another, (2009) 6 SCC 1211, he is not pressing them. 6. Per contra, Mr. Kamlesh Kotai, learned advocate for the respondents-original claimants supported the judgment and award of the Tribunal dated 30.09.2010 and submitted that from the record it is clear that the appellant -Insurance company has failed in establishing that the deceased was travelling as a passenger by payment of fare on hire basis. Further, the risk of passenger was covered as extra premium has been paid and accepted by the insurance company and therefore the Insurance Company is liable for the payment of compensation as awarded by the Tribunal vide judgment and award dated 30/09/2010. He further submitted that compensation awarded by the Tribunal being just compensation, does not call for any interference and thus, submitted to dismiss the appeal. 7. Heard learned advocates for the respective parties and perused the record and proceedings of the case. 8. Upon re-appreciation of the evidence on record, it is noticed that policy of insurance company is on record at Exh-36. The said policy covers period of accident. This fact is also supported in the written statement filed by owner of Qualis car at Exh.12. 8. Upon re-appreciation of the evidence on record, it is noticed that policy of insurance company is on record at Exh-36. The said policy covers period of accident. This fact is also supported in the written statement filed by owner of Qualis car at Exh.12. In the affidavit filed by the owner of Qualis car, he had stated that, at the time of accident, policy was in existence and therefore, insurance company of Qualis car was liable for payment of compensation. From the affidavit filed, nothing came on record which suggest that the car was given on hire and the deceased was traveling as a passenger. Moreover, though heavy reliance has been placed on charge sheet at Exh-38 by the insurance company, perusal of the same does not referred that, the deceased was traveling as a passenger on hire basis. Further, in the cross-examination at Exh-39, nothing contrary came on record that the deceased was traveling by hiring the car as passenger. Further, the finding of the Tribunal that, extra premium was paid which covers the risk of passenger cannot be ignored. In view of the above factual findings, we are not in agreement with the submission of learned advocate for the appellant that the deceased was traveling as a passenger in the car after payment of fare on hire basis. Therefore, the findings of the Tribunal are upheld that the accident occurred on account of sole negligence of driver of Qualis car and the deceased died in the accident occurred on 25.06.2006. As the submission on behalf of insurance company, that deceased was travelling as passenger on hire basis on payment of fare could not be established and accepted for the reasons stated herein above, we deemed it appropriate not to go in the aspect of extra premium being paid by the owner of the Qualis car. In relation to the grounds of compensation raised in the memo of appeal, we appreciate the fairness shown by learned advocate Mr. Sandip Shah and upheld the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. In view of the above, the appeal filed by the appellant-insurance company, does not call for any interference of this Court. For the reasons aforesaid, the appeal of the Insurance Company being meritless, is hereby dismissed. 9. The original claimants are therefore, entitled for the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. In view of the above, the appeal filed by the appellant-insurance company, does not call for any interference of this Court. For the reasons aforesaid, the appeal of the Insurance Company being meritless, is hereby dismissed. 9. The original claimants are therefore, entitled for the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. The amount of compensation deposited by the appellant-Insurance company and lying in the Fixed Deposit with interest, shall be disbursed to the respondents-original claimants through RTGS, after due verification, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 10. Registry is directed to transmit back the Record and Proceedings of the case to the concerned Tribunal forthwith. However, there shall be no order as to costs.