An insurer must indemnify third parties for liabilities despite policy violations, but retains the right to recover payments from the vehicle owner.

1. The present Appeal has been filed under S.173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 , against the Judgment and Order / Award dated 12.5.2010 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Meerut in Motor Accident Claim Case No. 405 of 2007 filed by the claimant - respondent no. 1 on account of the injuries sustained by him in an accident which took place on 23.2.2007 at about 3.45 in the after - noon.

2. The case of the claimant - respondent no. 1 was that on 23.2.2007, Dilshad Malik and Bilal (claimant - respondent no.1) were going from Meerut to Hapur on a Motorcycle bearing Registration No. UP14 - AF 6136 being driven by the said Dilshad Malik; and that at about 3.45 P.M. when the said Dilshad Malik and Bilal on the said Motorcycle reached near Dhanauta Bus - Stand on Meerut - Hapur Road, a Roadways Bus bearing Registration No. UP12 - J 5519 coming from the opposite direction and being driven by its Driver rashly and negligently, hit the said Motorcycle as a result of which the Driver of the said Motorcycle, namely, Dilshad Malik and the pillion rider of the said Motorcycle, namely, Bilal sustained serious injuries and the said Motorcycle was also heavily damaged; and that on account of the injuries sustained by the claimant - respondent no.1 in the said accident, he suffered from total permanent disablement.

3. It was, inter - alia, further stated on behalf of the claimant - respondent no.1 that the said Roadways Bus was owned by the U.P. State Road Transport Corporation (respondent no.2 herein), and the same was insured with the Appellant - Insurance Company.

4. The said Roadways Bus has hereinafter been also referred to as "the vehicle in question".

5. The Claim Petition was contested by the respondent no. 2 (owner of the vehicle in question) as well as by the Appellant - Insurance Company by filing Written Statements.

6. The respondent no. 2 (owner of the vehicle in question) in its Written Statement, inter - alia, stated that the respondent no. 2 was the owner of the vehicle in question, and the same was insured with the Appellant - Insurance Company on the date and time of the alleged accident. However, the respondent no.2 denied the remaining averments made in the Claim Petition, and averred that no accident as alleged was caused by the vehicle in question, and no injuries were sustained by the claimant - respondent no.1 in the alleged accident. It was, inter - alia, further averred on behalf of the respondent no. 2 that at the time of the alleged accident, the vehicle in question was parked on the Bus - Stand, and it had started for its destination at 4.10 P.M.; and that the vehicle in question was being driven with valid Permit and Fitness Certificate on the date of the alleged accident; and that the owner of the said Motorcycle and its insurer who were necessary parties were not impleaded as parties in the Claim Petition, and as such, the Claim Petition was vitiated on account of non - joinder of necessary parties.

7. The Appellant - Insurance Company in its Written Statement admitted that the vehicle in question was insured with the Appellant - Insurance Company for the period with effect from 8.11.2006 to 7.11.2007. However, the remaining averments made in the Claim Petition were not admitted by the Appellant - Insurance Company.

8. It was, inter - alia, further averred on behalf of the Appellant - Insurance Company that no such accident had occurred on the alleged date, time and place; and that the vehicle in question was not involved in the alleged accident; and that the alleged accident occurred due to sole negligence on the part of the drive