The main legal point established in the judgment is the liability of the insurance company in cases where the offending vehicle was being driven without a valid permit, applying the principle of 'pay and recover' and referencing previous judgments.

JUDGMENT

1. This Miscellaneous Appeal under Sec. 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act has been filed against the award dtd. 26/4/2010 passed by Ninth Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gwalior in Claim Case No.239/2009, by which the insurance company has been exonerated from its liability to pay the compensation amount on the ground that the offending vehicle was not having valid permit at the time of the accident.

2. Challenging the award passed by the Claims Tribunal, it is submitted by the counsel for the claimants/appellants that even if the vehicle was not having valid permit, still the insurance company can be saddled with the liability of payment of compensation amount with a right to recover the same from the owner and the driver. To buttress his contentions, the counsel for the appellants has relied upon the judgment passed by this Court in the case of Smt. Mithlesh Gurjar and Ors. vs. Santosh Pal and Ors. passed in MA No.950/2017 decided on 10/2/2020.

3. Per contra, it is submitted by the counsel for the respondent no.3 that since the offending vehicle was being plied without any valid permit, therefore, the insurance company has been rightly exonerated.

4. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

5. The present appeal has been filed by the claimants against exoneration of the insurance company. Undisputedly, the offending vehicle was insured by respondent no.3-insurance company. The insurance company has been exonerated only on the ground that the offending vehicle was being driven without any valid permit. This Court in the case of Smt. Mithlesh Gurjar (Supra) has held as under:-

"Without challenging the findings recorded by the Claims Tribunal that the offending vehicle was being plied without valid permit, it is submitted by the Counsel for the appellants, that the Claims Tribunal should have applied the principle of Pay and Recover. Per contra, it is submitted by the Counsel for the Insurance Company, that since, the offending vehicle was being driven without valid permit, therefore, the Insurance Company has been rightly exonerated in toto. Heard the learned Counsel for the Parties. The Supreme Court in the case of Shivaraj Vs. Rajendra reported in (2018) 10 SCC 432 has held as under :-

''10. The High Court, however, found in favour of Respondent 2 (insurer) that the appellant travelled in the tractor as a passenger which was in breach of the policy condition, for the tractor was insured for agriculture purposes and not for carrying goods. The evidence on record unambiguously pointed out that neither was any trailer insured nor was any trailer attached to the tractor. Thus, it would follow that the appellant travelled in the tractor as a passenger, even though the tractor could accommodate only one person, namely, the driver. As a result, the Insurance Company (Respondent 2) was not liable for the loss or injuries suffered by the appellant or to indemnify the owner of the tractor. That conclusion reached by the High Court, in our opinion, is unexceptionable in the fact situation of the present case.

11. At the same time, however, in the facts of the present case the High Court ought to have directed the insurance company to pay the compensation amount to the appellant claimant with liberty to recover the same from the tractor owner, in view of the consistent view taken in that regard by this Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swaran Singh, Mangla Ram v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Rani v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. and including Manuara Khatun v. Rajesh Kumar Singh. In other words, the High Court should have partly allowed the appeal preferred by Respondent 2. The appellant may, therefore, succeed in getting relief of direction to Respondent 2 insurance company to pay the compensation amount to the appellant with liberty to recover the same from the tractor owner, Respondent 1.

In the present case also, the injured persons were sitting in the trolley, attached with Tractor No. MP 06 J.A. 4039. The claims T