JUDGMENT :

ALOK ARADHE, J.

1 In this appeal under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short) the appellant insurer has assailed the validity of the judgment dated 19.11.2015 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal for short).

2. Facts giving rise to the filing of the appeal briefly stated are that on 14.09.2014, the deceased N. Janardhana was driving a motorcycle and proceeding from Madanapalle town towards Ramasamudram town along with his friend namely Raghunath @ Raghu. When they reached near Gajjalavaripalle cross on Ramasamudram Madanapalle road at about 5.30 p.m., an Eicher tempo bearing registration No.AP-12 W-0987 came from opposite direction which was being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the motorcycle. As a result of the aforesaid accident, the driver of the motorcycle as well as the pillion rider sustained grievous injuries. The deceased was immediately taken to a private hospital at Madanapalle. Thereafter, the deceased was shifted to Tirupathi and he succumbed to his injuries at 8 p.m. on that very day.

3. Thereupon, the claimants filed a petition under Section 166 of the Act inter-alia on the ground that the accident has taken place on account of the rash and negligent driving of the tempo driver. It was further pleaded that on the date of accident, deceased was aged about 40 years and was employed as submersible mechanic and was drawing a monthly salary of Rs.15,000/-. The claimants accordingly claimed compensation. Despite service of notice, the respondent No.1 did not enter appearance and was proceeded ex-parte. The respondent No.2 filed written statement and denied the averments made in the petition. The involvement of the tempo and rash and negligent act on the part of its driver was also denied. However, it was admitted that the vehicle in question was insured. It was also pleaded that the tempo was being plied without permit and in breach of the terms and conditions of the policy. Therefore, the respondent No.2 is not liable to indemnify the insured.

4. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the Claims Tribunal framed the issues and thereafter recorded the evidence. The claimants, in order to prove their case, examined two witnesses namely N. Manjula and Dr. Raghunath as PW-1 and PW-2 and got exhibited documents namely Ex.P1 to Ex.P8. The respondents got examined one witness namely Mr. Raghu Martoor and got exhibited documents namely Ex.R1 to Ex.R6. The Claims Tribunal, by the impugned judgment, inter-alia, held that the accident took place on account of rash and negligent driving of the driver of the tempo, as a result of which, the deceased sustained grievous injuries and expired. The Tribunal further held that the claimants are entitled to a compensation of Rs.20,92,500/- along with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of petition till realization from respondent No.2. Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before us.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant has urged that the accident took place on 14.09.2014. While inviting the attention of this Court to paragraphs 41 to 45 of the judgment of the Claims Tribunal, it is argued that the Claims Tribunal itself has recorded a finding that the permit was valid for a period from 05.11.2014 to 04.11.2019 that is for the period subsequent to the date of accident and therefore, as on the date of accident, there was no permit and in the absence of any permit on the date of the accident, the Insurance Company could not be held liable. However, the aforesaid aspect has not been appreciated by the Claims Tribunal. In support of the aforesaid submission, learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Challa Bharathamma and Others, (2004) ACJ 2094 and Pareed Pillai vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. (2019) ACJ 16 and has also invite