1. This is an Insurer's appeal against the award dated 20.02.2019 passed by learned 2nd Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Surajpur (C.G.) in Claim Case No.98/2017.

2. In this case, the accident took place on 11.08.2017 at about 5:00 p.m., when deceased Rampratap (a student aged about 05 years) after getting down from the offending vehicle bearing registration No.CG 15 AD 0553 was crossing the road to go to his house, the driver of the said vehicle i.e. respondent no.6 drove the vehicle rashly and negligently and after hitting Rampratap crushed him, as a result of which, he suffered grievous injuries and died on the spot. The claimants who are parents and grandparents of the deceased preferred a claim application before the Tribunal claiming compensation of Rs.15,50,000/-. Learned Tribunal, on a close scrutiny of the evidence available on record, award a total compensation of Rs.4,80,000/- in favour of the claimants with interest @ 9% per annum, from the date of application till its realization. While passing the impugned award, the Tribunal has saddled the liability of payment of compensation upon the Insurance Company against which the present appeal has been filed by the Insurance Company.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant - Insurance Company submits that the offending vehicle was being used for transporting school children for which there was no permit. Therefore, operating the vehicle without a permit is a violation of the insurance conditions. He submits that the burden of proof placed on the insurance company by the Tribunal is erroneous as the insurance conditions were violated by operating the vehicle in the absence of permit. In such a situation, the insurance company is not liable for payment of any compensation. Therefore, prays for allowing the appeal by exonerating the Insurance Company from its liability.

4. Learned counsel for respondents No. 5 and 6 submits that the award passed by the tribunal is based on proper appreciation of evidence and there is no error of any kind in it. The argument of the appellant insurance company is not acceptable. Hence, the appeal is liable to be dismissed.

5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

6. In this case, deceased Rampratap was a 5 year old student. On behalf of the claimants, the father of the deceased, Shivmangal Rajwade and spot witness Mohitram Rajwade have been examined whereas on behalf of the appellant insurance company, Investigator Anoop Mehta and Branch Manager B. R. Bhagat have been examined. The registration certificate of the offending vehicle Exhibit - NA 02, the driving license of driver Puranram Exhibit - NA 03 and the policy Exhibit NA 04 have been produced on behalf of the Insurance Company. From the entire pleadings and evidence of both the parties, it is clear that at the time of incident, the offending vehicle was being used for transporting school students. On the date of incident, when 5 year old Rampratap was getting down from the offending vehicle and going, the accident took place. According to the insurance company's witnesses, Investigator Anoop Mehta and Branch Manager B. R. Bhagat, a permit was required for the said vehicle but there was no permit. The registered owner and the driver of the offending vehicle have not pleaded in their reply regarding the availability of permit of the offending vehicle. The witnesses of the insurance company have also been cross - examined but no suggestion has been made that permit for the offending vehicle was available.

7. In the matter of Amrit Paul Singh and Another Vs. Tata AIG General Insurance Company Limited and others reported in 2018 (7) SCC 558, the necessity of permit and the burden of proof of vehicle owner has been determined. In this regard, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in paragraph - 24 of the said judgment has observed as follows: -
"24. In the case at hand, it is clearly demonstrable from the materials brought on record that the vehicle at the time