JUDGMENT :

Appellants have filed this appeal, challenging the award dated 24.07.2018 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chittorgarh in Claim Case No. 98/2010.

2. Learned counsel for the appellants-claimants submits that while deciding issue no.3, the learned tribunal held that at the time of accident, the respondent no.4 was not having valid permit to ply the vehicle and thus, exonerated the Insurance Company from its liability. He, however, has orally submitted in the Court that his prayer in the present appeal is limited to the effect that the Insurance Company be directed to pay the amount of compensation to the claimant in the first instance. The Insurance Company had been exonerated from indemnifying the insured on account of breach of terms of the insurance policy. In support of his arguments, learned counsel has placed reliance on the decision of this Court in Amrit Paul Singh and Another. Vs. Tata AIG General Insurance Company Limited and Others 2018(7) Supreme Court Cases 558, wherein it was held as under:-

“In the case at hand, it is clearly demonstrable from the materials brought on record that the vehicle at the time of the accident did not have a permit. The appellants had taken the stand that the vehicle was not involved in the accident. That apart, they had not stated whether the vehicle had temporary permit or any other kind of permit. The exceptions that have been carved out under Section 66 of the Act, needless to emphasis, are to be pleaded and proved. The exceptions cannot be taken aid of in the course of an argument to seek absolution from liability. Use of a vehicle in a public place without a permit is a fundamental statutory infraction. We are disposed to think so in view of the series of exceptions carved out in Section 66. The said situations cannot be equated for different kind for that matter, violation of a condition of carrying more number of passengers. Therefore, the principles laid down in Swaran Singh (supra) and Lakhmi Chand (supra) in that regard would not be applicable to the case at hand. That apart, the insurer had taken the plea that the vehicle in question had no permit. It does not require the wisdom of the “Tripitaka”, that the existence of a permit of any nature is a matter of documentary evidence. Nothing has been brought on record by the insured to prove that he had a permit of the vehicle. In such a situation, the onus cannot be cast on the insurer. Therefore, the tribunal as well as the High Court had directed the insurer was required to pay the compensation amount to the claimants with interest with the stipulation that the insurer shall be entitled to recover the same from the owner and the driver. The said directions are in consonance with the principles stated in Swaran Singh (supra) and other cases pertaining to pay and recover principle.”

3. Learned counsel has next placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pappu and Others Vs. Vinod Kumar Lamba and Others. (2018) 3 Supreme Court Cases 208, wherein, it was held as under:-

“The next question is: whether in the fact situation of this case the insurance company can be and ought to be directed to pay the claim amount, with liberty to recover the same from the owner of the vehicle (respondent No.1)? This issue has been answered in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. (supra). In that case, it was contended by the insurance company that once the defence taken by the insurer is accepted by the Tribunal, it is bound to discharge the insurer and fix the liability only on the owner and/ or the driver of the vehicle. However, this Court held that even if the insurer succeeds in establishing its defence, the Tribunal or the Court can direct the insurance company to pay the award amount to the claimant(s) and, in turn, recover the same from the owner of the vehicle. The three-Judge Bench, after analysing the earlier decisions on the point, held that there was no reason to deviate from the said well-se