JUDGMENT : 1. Both these misc. appeals have been preferred by the appellants/non-claimants No.1 and 2, who are the owner and driver of the offending vehicle (Car No.GJ-6/A-5777) under Section 173 of the M.V. Act, 1988 challenging the judgment and award dated 19.11.2009 passed by learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Additional District Judge (FT) No.3, Udaipur Camp Salumber in MAC Case Nos.116/2009 and 117/2009 respectively, whereby the claim petitions filed by the claimants were partly allowed while awarding compensation of Rs.19,000/-and Rs.4,49,000/- in favour of respective claimants along with interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of filing the claim petition. The learned Tribunal fastened the liability to satisfy the award upon the appellants/non-claimants No.1 and 2 while exonerating the insurance companies from their liability to pay the compensation. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the claimants filed two claim petitions claiming compensation. Claimant- Lala filed Claim Case No.116/2009 claiming compensation for the injuries suffered by him in the accident; and the claimants Smt. Laxmi Devi and 3 others filed claim petition claiming compensation on account of death of their sole breadwinner late Sh. Harishchandra Parmar. In the claim petitions, it was alleged that on 14.11.2006 at 03:45 pm, on NH No.8 near Banjriya village, two vehicles viz. RJ-27-C-2816 (Jeep) and GJ-06-BA-5777 (Car) collided on account of rash and negligent driving of drivers of both the vehicles. Claimant Lala and one Sh. Harji (now deceased) were the occupant of Jeep. In the said accident, claimant Lala suffered various injuries, whereas Sh. Harji (husband claimant Smt. Laxmi Devi) died on account of injuries suffered by him. 3. In the claim petition filed by claimant Lala, it was alleged that at the time of accident, he was 30 years of age and he was earning Rs.3000/- per month. Claimant Lala claimed compensation of Rs.2,14,000/- under various heads. 4. In the claim petition filed by claimants, Smt. Laxmi Devi, it was alleged that deceased Harji was employed as cleaner of Jeep and apart from this work, he was also discharging the work of loading and unloading the goods. The claimants thus claimed compensation of Rs.40,58,000/- on account of untimely death of their sole breadwinner under various heads. The accident was reported to the police and FIR was registered, wherein after investigation charge sheet came to be filed against non-claimant No.1. 5. The claimants thus claimed compensation of Rs.40,58,000/- on account of untimely death of their sole breadwinner under various heads. The accident was reported to the police and FIR was registered, wherein after investigation charge sheet came to be filed against non-claimant No.1. 5. The claim petitions were contested by the non-claimants No.1 and 2 by filing reply while denying the contents thereof. It was alleged that vehicle Jeep (RJ-27-C-2816) was plied by its driver cautiously and it was the driver of the another Car ( GJ-06-BA-5777), who plied his car negligent and hit the jeep. On behalf of non-claimant No.3 i.e. the New India Insurance Co. Ltd. reply to claim petition was filed and, it was alleged that the vehicle Jeep was registered in the name of non-claimant No.2 and it was a private LMV vehicle, however, the same was used as passenger vehicle, therefore, it was not liable to pay any compensation. While filing reply to Claim Case No.117/2009, the non-claimants alleged that on 14.11.2006, his neighbourer Lala came to him and requested to drop them to hospital, as his wife was suffering from labour pain. It was further alleged that in the aforesaid circumstances and taking humanitarian approach while he started for hospital in his Jeep, which was plied at a moderate speed, though in wrong side, it was hit by a Car and there was no negligent on their part. It was thus prayed that the claim petitions be dismissed. 6. On behalf of non-claimant No.4, owner of Car (GJ-06-BA-5777), reply to claim petitions was filed, while stating therein that the vehicle was insured with non-claimant No.5 and the accident took place on account of rash and negligent driving of driver of Jeep and there was no fault on his part. It was thus prayed that the claim petitions be dismissed. 7. As per the pleadings of the parties, the learned Tribunal framed four issues including relief. In support of their claim petitions, the claimants examined AW.1 Smt. Laxmi Devi, AW.2 Lala and exhibited 24 documents. On behalf of non-claimants, NAW.1 Shantiprakash Jhalani, NAW.2 Deva, NAW 3 Narayan Lal and AW.4 Dinesh were examined. 8. 7. As per the pleadings of the parties, the learned Tribunal framed four issues including relief. In support of their claim petitions, the claimants examined AW.1 Smt. Laxmi Devi, AW.2 Lala and exhibited 24 documents. On behalf of non-claimants, NAW.1 Shantiprakash Jhalani, NAW.2 Deva, NAW 3 Narayan Lal and AW.4 Dinesh were examined. 8. The learned Tribunal thereafter heard arguments of the parties and after considering the material placed before it vide judgment and award dated 19.11.2009 proceeded to partly allow the claim petitions filed by the respective claimants and the liability was fastened upon the appellants/non-claimants No.1 and 2. 9. Aggrieved by the judgment and award impugned holding the appellants liable to pay the compensation, the appellants have preferred the instant misc. appeals seeking quashing of the judgment and award impugned. 10. Insofar as CMA No.305/2010 is concerned, a Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 05.04.2010 while issuing the notices to the respondents, rejected the stay application preferred by the appellants looking to the meager amount of compensation. 11. In CMA No.367/2010, a Coordinate Bench of this Court, while issuing notices to the respondents, stayed the operation of the award, subject to the condition that the appellants shall deposit 50% of the awarded sum within a period of three weeks in the concerned claims Tribunal. The aforesaid amount upon being deposited was ordered to be disbursed to the claimants. It was further directed that in case of non-deposition of the 50% of the awarded sum, the stay granted was ordered to be automatically vacated entitling the claimants to get the award executed. The said appeal was thereafter admitted by another Coordinate Bench of this Court on 02.03.2012 and the interim order dated 05.04.2010 was confirmed. 12. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants submits that the learned Tribunal has erred while deciding the Issue No.1 regarding rash and negligent driving of the vehicle against the appellants. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that merely because the charge sheet was filed against the driver of Jeep, the same could not be made basis to hold the appellants liable to cause the accident. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that there was negligence on the part of driver of car, which was being driven rashly and negligently. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that merely because the charge sheet was filed against the driver of Jeep, the same could not be made basis to hold the appellants liable to cause the accident. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that there was negligence on the part of driver of car, which was being driven rashly and negligently. Learned counsel for the appellants further submits that the learned Tribunal has erred in exonerating the insurance company i.e. non-claimant No.3 from its liability to pay the compensation, inasmuch as there no violation or breach of the policy conditions. Learned counsel for the appellants, therefore, argues that the finding arrived at by the learned Tribunal while deciding No.2 cannot be sustained. Learned counsel for the appellants further submits that premium was charged by the insurance company qua the cleaner and, therefore, the insurance company could not have been exonerated from its liability to pay the compensation. 13. Learned counsel for the appellants further submits that although injured Lala in his evidence stated that Rs.6/- were charged from him by the driver of jeep, however, the said statement has not been proved. Learned counsel for the appellants thus submits that vehicle was not being used as a passenger vehicle and, therefore, the insurance company could not have been exonerated from its liability. 14. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that deceased Harishchandra was not the passenger in the jeep, and no fare was charged from him and at best, he could be termed as third party and being third party, the liability of paying the compensation, could not have been fastened upon the appellants. Learned counsel for the appellants also submits that compensation awarded in favour of claimants on account of death of Sh. Harishchandra is on higher side as no plausible evidence was led by the claimants to prove the income of the deceased. Learned counsel for the appellants thus submits that the instant appeals be allowed and the impugned judgment and award be set aside. 15. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent The New India Insurance Company Ltd. submits that the policy taken by the appellants was ‘act only’ policy, wherein the occupants of the vehicle are not covered and, therefore, the Tribunal has rightly exonerated the non-claimant No.3 from its liability to pay the compensation to the claimants. 15. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent The New India Insurance Company Ltd. submits that the policy taken by the appellants was ‘act only’ policy, wherein the occupants of the vehicle are not covered and, therefore, the Tribunal has rightly exonerated the non-claimant No.3 from its liability to pay the compensation to the claimants. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 further submits that the vehicle Jeep was a private LMV vehicle, however, the same was used as passenger vehicle, therefore, the learned Tribunal has rightly exonerated the respondent insurance company from its liability to pay the compensation. 16. Mr. L.D. Khatri, learned counsel appearing for respondent National Insurance Company submits that there was no negligent on the part of driver of the car, insured by the respondent and the charge sheet was filed against the driver of jeep. He further submits that in fact the jeep was being plied by its driver in wrong side negligent, which fact has been admitted by the non-claimants No.1 and 2 in their reply to the claim petition. 17. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents/claimants submits that that NAW.2 Deva in his testimony has specifically denied that deceased Harishchandra was employed as a cleaner on his jeep, therefore, the grounds raised by the appellants that premium was charged qua the cleaner, has no substance to stand on. 18. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and have perused the material available on record. 19. This Court finds that the learned Tribunal while passing the impugned judgment and award has observed that the appellants, who are the owner and driver of offending Jeep (RJ-27-C-2816), have taken the insurance policy, which is ‘act only’ policy and no premium was at all charged by the insurer qua the occupants of the jeep and, therefore, the insurance company i.e. non-claimant No.3 has rightly been exonerated from its liability to pay the compensation. This Court finds that the learned Tribunal has rejected the plea of the claimants that deceased Harishchandra was not employed as cleaner on the jeep, however, while treating deceased Harishchandra to be a daily wager, has quantified his monthly income at Rs.3000/- and accordingly awarded compensation of Rs.4,32,000/- under the head of loss of income. This Court finds that the learned Tribunal has rejected the plea of the claimants that deceased Harishchandra was not employed as cleaner on the jeep, however, while treating deceased Harishchandra to be a daily wager, has quantified his monthly income at Rs.3000/- and accordingly awarded compensation of Rs.4,32,000/- under the head of loss of income. This Court also finds that in the instant appeal, the appellants have taken contradictory stand that premium was charged for cleaner of the vehicle jeep, however, in their evidence, they have specifically denied that deceased Harishchandra was ever engaged by them as cleaner on their jeep. Therefore, in the considered opinion of this Court, such contradictory pleadings cannot be appreciated. This Court is of the opinion that non-claimant No.3 insurance company, has rightly been exonerated from its liability to pay the compensation as no premium was at all charged qua the occupants of the vehicle, as it was a private vehicle and not a passenger/transport vehicle. 20. This Court also finds that the in the reply to claim petition filed by the appellants/non-claimants No.1 and 2, have specifically stated as under: Hindi image 21. This Court finds that from the above quoted pleadings, which is part of record, it is amply proved that there was negligence on the part of driver of the offending Jeep, as it was plied by its driver in wrong side at high speed. This Court also finds that after investigation, the police had filed charge sheet against the driver of the offending jeep, which is clearly indicator of the fact that there was negligence on the part of the driver of the jeep in question. This Court finds that the vehicle jeep was a private LMV vehicle and was not even meant and insured for allowing passengers to travel in it, therefore, the learned Tribunal has rightly exonerated the insurance company (non-claimant No.3) from its liability to pay the compensation. 22. So far as the quantum of compensation quantified by the learned Tribunal is concerned, this Court finds that the compensation awarded in favour of respective claimants, looking to the evidence led by the parties, the learned Tribunal has found deceased Harishchandra to be daily wager and awarded the compensation accordingly and the said conclusion arrived at by the learned Tribunal calls for no interference by this Court. 23. 23. Accordingly and in view of above discussion, this Court is satisfied that the learned Tribunal has not committed any error in passing the impugned judgment and award dated 19.11.2009. The misc. appeals are, therefore, dismissed. Stay Application No.4178/2010 in CMA No.367/2010 stands rejected. The appellants are directed to pay remaining 50% compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal to claimants of CMA No.367/2010 within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this judgment along with interest @7.5% p.a., as awarded by the learned Tribunal. No costs.