RAJESH KUMAR AGGARWAL Vs. RAM CHANDER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the Tribunal has held that the vehicle which was involved in the accident was being used as a taxi. According to the learned counsel, the aforesaid finding of fact is not based on any evidence.

(2.) We have perused the award.

(3.) A perusal of para 28 of the award clearly shows that one Anil Nagpal, Senior Assistant, RW 1, appeared in court and made a deposition in the witness-box to the effect that the vehicle in question was not covered against the risk of being used as for hire or reward. The Tribunal has also referred to the evidence of witness Rajesh, PW 2, in which it has been stated that the vehicle in question was hired as taxi. On the basis of the aforesaid evidence Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal has come to the conclusion that there was a breach in the terms and conditions enumerated in the insurance policy. In such circumstances, the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal has given a direction that insurance company is at liberty to recover the compensation awarded, from the appellant.