The main legal point established in the judgment is the liability of the insurer under sections 147 and 149 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and the insurer's right to recover the amount from the insured person, as supported by various decisions of the Supreme Court.

1. The present Appeal has been filed u/s 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the Judgment and Order/Award dated 10.8.2011 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Gautam Budh Nagar in Motor Accident Claim Case No. 117 of 2005 filed by the claimant-respondent No. 1 on account of the injuries sustained by him in an accident which took place on 9.4.2003 at 4.00 P.M. The case set-up in the Claim Petition was that on 9.4.2003, the claimant-respondent No. 1 alongwith his brother Bhagyadhar were coming down to their home after finishing their routine sanitary work; and that the claimant-respondent No. 1 was a contractor of sanitary work and had been working as sub-contractor under his lead contractor Mahmood before the accident; and that Bhagyadhar, brother of the claimant-respondent No. 1, was driving the vehicle at a low speed on his own side and the claimant-respondent No. 1 was sitting behind; and that when both reached near Atama Steel, a Bus bearing Registration No. UP-15G-2311 (hereinafter also referred to as "the vehicle in question"), coming on the wrong-side, hit them in the front; and that both the brothers fell down on the road and received serious injuries; and that it was sole negligence and rashness of the Driver of the Bus (i.e. the vehicle in question), which resulted in the accident; and that the claimant-respondent No. 1 underwent treatment in various hospitals and spent huge amount in such treatment.

2. The respondent No. 2 (Niranjan Singh) was the Driver of the vehicle in question and the respondent No. 3 (Rajesh Kumar) was the owner of the vehicle in question. The Appellant-Insurance Company was the insurer of the vehicle in question.

3. By the Order dated 25.9.2006, the Tribunal treated the service of notice on the respondent nos. 2 and 3 through publication as sufficient, and the Claim Case was directed to proceed ex-parte against the said respondents.

4. No Written Statement was filed on behalf of the respondent nos. 2 and 3.

5. The Appellant-Insurance Company filed its Written Statement denying the averments made in the Claim Petition.

6. After exchange of pleadings between the parties, the Tribunal framed Issues in the said Claim Case.

7. Evidence was led in the said Claim Case.

8. Having considered the material on record, the Tribunal recorded its findings on various Issues.

9. The Tribunal, inter-alia, held that the accident in question took place on account of rash and negligent driving by the Driver of the vehicle in question resulting in serious injuries to the claimant-respondent No. 1.

10. The Tribunal further held that there was no contributory negligence on the part of the claimant-respondent No. 1.

11. The Tribunal further held that the Driver of the vehicle in question was having valid and effective Driving Licence on the date of the accident.

12. The Tribunal further held that the vehicle in question was being plied without valid and effective Permit on the date of the accident, and there was thus violation of the terms of the Insurance Policy.

13. In view of the above findings, the Tribunal passed the impugned Judgment and Order/Award dated 10.8.2011, inter-alia, awarding to the claimant-respondent No. 1, compensation amounting to Rs. 2,33,600/- with interest at the rate of 7% per annum with effect from the date of presentation of the Claim Petition till the date of final payment.

14. However, in view of the above finding recorded by the Tribunal that the vehicle in question was being plied without valid and effective Permit on the date of the accident, and thus, there was violation of the terms of the Insurance Policy, the Tribunal directed that the amount of compensation would initially be paid by the Appellant-Insurance Company, and thereafter, the Appellant-Insurance Company would have right to recover the same from the owner of the vehicle in question (respondent No. 3 herein).

15. We have heard Sri Syed Ali Murtaza, learned counsel for the Appellant-Insurance Company, and peru