( 1 ) HEARD the Counsel for the appellants.

( 2 ) SINCE the issue involved in all these appeals is common, they are being disposed of by this common judgment.

( 3 ) ALL these appeals are filed challenging the awards passed by the Motor accident Claims Tribunal awarding different amounts to the claimants injured ranging from Rs. 15,000. 00 to Rs. 20,000. 00 in the same accident.

( 4 ) THE learned Counsel appearing for the appellant-Insurance Company submitted that as per the policy the vehicle is permitted to ply only upto 7 k. ms. within a prescribed route, but the owner of the vehicle got it plied beyond the said limit and also in deviation to the prescribed route. Therefore, she vehemently contended that as the vehicle, which was involved in the accident, plied contrary to the prescribed limitations, it amounts to violation of the terms and conditions of the policy and hence the insurance Company is not liable to pay any compensation to the injured.

( 5 ) AT the outset I am of the considered view that impugned awards do not warrant any interference, since the amounts awarded to the claimants who are admittedly injured in the accident, are very meager, ranging from Rs. 15,000. 00to the Rs. 20,000. 00 and on that score i. e. , on the ground of triviality, this Court is inclined to dismiss the appeals without expressing any opinion on merits and also without making the decision as a binding precedent. But the learned Counsel appearing for the appellants strenuously contended that in all these appeals principle of law is involved rather than quantum of compensation awarded and, therefore urged this Court to dispose of the appeals by giving findings on merits.

( 6 ) IN fact, the issue in the present appeals is covered by a series of judgments of the Apex Court. However, in the light of law laid down by Apex Court, I would like to consider the contention raised by the counsel for the appellant.

( 7 ) THE brief facts of the cases are that the on 20. 11. 1999 at about 12. 30 p. m. the bus bearing No. AP 03-U-0849 in which the claimants were travelling met with the accident due to rash and negligent driving of the bus by the driver and as a result all the claimants sustained injuries. As submitted by the Counsel for the appellants, it appears that the vehicle was driven beyond the prescribed limits and also in contravention of the route prescribed in the policy. Therefore, as per the contention of the Counsel for the appellants it amounts to violation of the terms and conditions of the policy.

( 8 ) ADMITTEDLY all the claimants who were travelling in the vehicle were injured because of the accident and only trump card for the Insurance Company in order to get absolved from the liability is violation of the terms and conditions of the policy . This ground in fact is not available for the Insurance Company to deny the compensation to the injured who are third parties, in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the decisions reported in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Kamla, 2001 (3) ALD 24 (SC) = 2001 acj 843, United India Insurance Co. , ltd. v. Lehru, 2003 (3) ALD 20 (SC) = 2003 (3) SCC 338 and N. I. v. Baljit Kaur, 2004 (1) ALD 98 (SC) = 2004 (1) scale 124.

( 9 ) IN Kamla s case (supra), the Apex court held that the Insurance Company is liable to pay to the third parties irrespective of the fact that there is any breach or violation of the policy conditions. It was further held that the insurance company could recover from the insured the amount so paid to the third parties, even if as per the policy conditions the insurer had no liability to pay such sum. The relevant portion at paragraph No. 22 of the judgment is extracted as under for ready reference:"to repeat, the effect of the above provisions is this: When a valid insurance policy has been issued in respect of a vehicle as evidenced by a certificate of insurance the burden is on the insurer to pay to third parties, whether or not there has been any br