The central legal point established in the judgment is the principle of 'pay and recover' for insurance companies in cases where the vehicle was insured at the time of the accident, as established by the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Manuara Khatun's case.

H.C. Mishra, J.

Heard learned counsel for the appellant Insurance Company, learned counsel for the claimants respondents Nos. 1 to 7, and learned counsel for the respondent No. 8, the owner of the offending truck.

2. This appeal is directed against the impugned Award dated 3.10.2016, passed by the MACT, Dhanbad, in Title (M.V.) Claim case No. 46 of 2014, arising out of a case of death due to accident by the offending truck, wherein the claimants respondents have been awarded the compensation of Rs. 9,56,000/- including the compensation already received under Section 148 of the M.V. Act, amounting to Rs. 50,000/-. Thus the remaining amount of compensation being Rs. 9,06,000/- was directed to be paid by the defendant No.2 (appellant herein), to the claimants along with the interest @ 6% per annum, and the amount to be paid to the different claimants was also apportioned by the MACT.

3. The only challenge to the impugned Award by the learned counsel for the appellant Insurance Company, is that the truck in question on the date of accident was not having the valid permit and accordingly, it is submitted by learned counsel that the liability of making the payment of compensation should have been imposed upon to the owner of the truck and not upon the Insurance Company. However, It is an admitted fact that on the date of accident, the truck was insured with the appellant Insurance Company.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant has drawn attention of this Court towards Section 66 of the Motor Vehicles Act, under which, even the vehicles for transportation of goods are required to have permit, granted or countersigned by the Regional or State Transport Authority, whether or not the goods are being transported. Learned counsel has drawn the attention of the Court towards issue No. 6 framed by the MACT, which reads - "Whether the permit of the vehicle was valid at that time". The owner of the truck had taken plea that the truck was having some defects in the engine, and the truck was kept in garage, but on the date of accident, it was being taken by the driver to the Transport office, when the accident had taken place, resulting in the death of the victim. According to the claim of the owner of the truck, the permit of the vehicle was not required for settlement of the claim. The Tribunal has given the finding that the plea taken by the owner of the truck was completely an afterthought and it had been taken only with a view to save herself from the liability of permit of the offending vehicle and therefore, the Tribunal has taken adverse inference against the owner of the truck, for not producing the required permit. However, the compensation has been awarded and the appellant Insurance Company has been saddled with the liability to make the payment of compensation to the claimants. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that once adverse inference was drawn against the owner of the truck, the liability of payment of compensation ought to have been fixed upon the owner of the truck and not upon the insurance company.

5. Learned counsel for the claimants respondents and learned counsel for the owner of the truck have opposed the prayer. Learned counsel for the claimants respondents has placed reliance upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Manuara Khatun and Ors. v. Rajesh Kumar Singh and Ors., reported in (2017) 4 SCC 796, wherein, the law has been laid down as follows:-

"13. The only question, which arises for consideration in these appeals, is whether the appellants are entitled for an order against the insurer of the offending vehicle i.e. (Respondent 3) to pay the awarded sum to the appellants and then to recover the said amount from the insured (owner of the offending vehicle Tata Sumo) Respondent 1 in the same proceedings.

14. The aforesaid question, in our opinion, remains no more res integra. As we notice, it was the subject matter of several decisions of this Court rendered by three Judge Bench and two Judge Ben