R.K. Gupta, J:

1. This is an appeal at the instance of the insurance company challenging the award dated 4.7.2003 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Sagar, wherein the liability of insurance company has been fixed.

2. The facts in short are that the claimant filed an application before the Tribunal claiming compensation for the injury received by him on 6.3.2002 at the time when he was travelling in jeep No. MP 15-D 5252 which met with an accident. At the time of accident, the said jeep was driven by respondent No. 1. The Tribunal came to the conclusion in para 1 l of its judgment that the said jeep was in fact a private vehicle and was insured for a period from 4.7.2001 to 3.7.2002.

3. The claim set up by the claimant is that on the date of incident, the vehicle was used as a taxi and he boarded the said vehicle by paying a fare of Rs. 10/- The aforesaid statement of claimant was not believed by the Tribunal on the ground that no definite statement or spacing evidence was given before the Tribunal that in fact he has paid the fare and on that basis, the Tribunal has fixed the responsibility of the insurance company in spite of the fact that the finding was recorded by the Tribunal that on the date of accident, the said vehicle was used as taxi that it was a private vehicle.

4. The question in the present case is that when the claimant himself has set up a claim and stated that on the date of accident he has paid Rs. 10/- as fare and then he boarded the jeep, then there was no reason for the Tribunal not to believe the statement of the claimant by holding that there was no definite statement given by the claimant that he has paid the fare.

5. In view of the aforesaid, the fact to the extent that no fare was paid by the claimant and he was travelling in the said jeep cannot be supported.

6. The next question which arises is that when the Tribunal itself has recorded a finding on the basis of the statement of the claimant that on the date of accident, he was travelling in the aforesaid jeep as a passenger which met with an accident then whether the Tribunal is justified in fixing the liability on the insurance company particularly when there was a breach of policy. The insurance policy was proved before the Tribunal along with its cover note as Exh. A-4 and Exh. NA-4 wherein it is specifically stated that the said jeep bearing No. MP 15-D 5252 was a private vehicle and was not a taxi. The insurance company has registered the said jeep as a private taxi (sic vehicle) and has not insured the same for the passengers.

7. The question in this regard has been considered by the Apex Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Asha Rani, 2003 ACJ 1 (S.C.). wherein the Apex Court has taken a view that a passenger in a goods vehicle is also entitled to the compensation in case of death or injury received due to the accident. The Apex Court has further held that a person would be entitled to the compensation only if a proof is furnished before the Tribunal that he was travelling along with the goods for the purposes of safety and protection of goods. The Apex Court further held that it has also to he proved that the vehicle was hired for the purposes of carrying the goods.

8. In view of the aforesaid. I am of the view that the Tribunal was not justified

in directing the insurance company to pay the compensation by allowing the claim against the insurance company in favour of the claimant. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed so far as the insurance company is concerned. The findings recorded by the Tribunal against the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are upheld. Appeal stands partly allowed. Appeal allowed.