1. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment/ award dated 21.03.2012 passed by the Presiding Officer, Motor Vehicle Accident Claim Tribunal, Ranchi in connection with Compensation Case No.306 of 2003 whereby the appellant/ New India Assurance Co. Ltd was directed to pay compensation of Rs.2,37,500/- along with interest @6% per annum payable with effect from 19.03.2009.

2. The claimants' case is that on 18.06.2013 the bus bearing registration No.JH 13A-0175, carrying the passengers reached near village Singsari under Angara Police Station and dashed the motorcycle coming from the opposite direction and subsequently dashed against the tree standing on the side of the road. The bus was extensively damaged and some passengers of the bus sustained injuries and some died due to the injuries sustained on account of the accident. It is alleged that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the bus. In the said accident the motorcycle rider namely Md. Shamshad @ Babloo succumbed to the injuries in course of treatment at RIIMS.

3. Amna Khaton the mother of deceased Md. Shamshad filed Compensation Case No.306 of 2003 claiming compensation on account of death of her son Md. Shamshad @ Bablu.

4. The appellant/insurance company has challenged the award. On notice by the Tribunal the owner and insurance company/appellant appeared and contested the claim denying their liabilities respectively.

5. The contention of the owner/insured was that the bus was validly insured with the insurance company and the driver had effective and valid driving licence and the bus was plying with a valid permit on the said route.

6. The appellant/insurance company contended that the bus was not having a valid permit to ply on the route where the accident has taken place. It is the case of the insurance company that according to the F.I.R. the accident has taken place between Angara to Ranchi and the bus was coming from Jonha which does not fall within the route permit from Ranchi to Kolkata via Tata. It is argued that the timing of the bus was mentioned in the permit and at the time of the accident the bus was not on the authorised route as per the permit. That since there has been violation of the terms of the permit, the insurance company is not liable to pay the compensation. DW-1 Deepak Kumar Lal, an Investigator appointed by the Insurer, has stated that the vehicle was granted route permit from Ranchi to Kolkata via Tata and the same was to be plied once in a day. That at the time of accident the bus was carrying 8090 persons which was beyond the seating capacity. He produced the photo copy of the permit of bus No. JH 13A – 0175 which has been marked as Exhibit-Y.

DW-2 was also deputed to investigate the permit No.PS TS -05/ 2001 issued by the Transport Authority, Jharkhand. The permit was from Ranchi to Kolkata via Tata.

7. In reply to the contention of the appellant, the owner of the bus has contended that as per the gazette notification there is also one route which goes to Tata via Silli and as such Angara falls within the said route and permit No.PS TS 05/2001 was granted for plying on the route from Ranchi to Kolkata via Tata. It is contended that no cogent evidence has been adduced by the appellant/insurer to substantiate the plea that there was violation of the terms of the permit.

8. In course of hearing learning counsel of the respondent/owner has produced the documents pertaining to the payment made by the insurance company in respect of own damages claim to the owner of bus No.JH 13A-0175. This has not been controverted by the Insurer/appellant.

9. It is apparent that for own damage case Complaint Case No.373 of 2003 was filed before the learned District Forum, Ranchi by the respondent/owner and the learned District Forum, on appreciation of the documentary and material evidence held that there is no violation of the terms and conditions of the policy or the permit and directed the insurance company/opp