Judgment :- P.A. Mohammed, J. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., the third respondent in O.P. (M.V.) No. 1339 of 1987 of the M. A.C.T., Kollarm is the appellant before us. The respondents 1 to 4 are the claimants who are the legal heirs of deceased Ramakrishnan Achary who died on 9.5.1987 as a result of the injuries sustained by him in the accident involving the vehicle No. KRQ 3057. They claimed an amount of Rs. 50,000/- as compensation for the death of Ramakrishnan Achary. After the enquiry the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 37,000/- with 12% interest as compensation. The Tribunal however directed the appellant to indemnify the owner of the vehicle for the compensation awarded. The Insurance Company being dissatisfied with the above award, filed the present appeal. 2. The Standing Counsel for the Insurance Company very forcefully argued before us that the appellant was not liable to indemnify the owner in as much as the offending vehicle had been used in violation of the policy conditions. According to him, there is breach of conditions of policy as prescribed in S.96(2)(c) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (for short'the Act'). S.96 is a substantive provision which declares the liability of the insurer to pay the claimant directly. Though there is no privity of contract between the insurer and claimant this section fixes the liability and en titles the claimant to claim compensation from the insurer. Under sub-s.(1) even if the insurer is entitled to avoid or cancel the policy, the insurer will have to fulfill its duty of statutory indemnity to the claimants in view of the non-obstante clause contained therein. Sub-s.(2) provides that no sum shall be payable by the insurer under sub-s.(1) unless the insurer had notice through the Court of the bringing of the proceeding for claim of compensation. 3. Notwithstanding the above, let us examine the conditions based on clause (c) of sub-s.(2) of S.96 that the policy is void on the ground that it was obtained by the nondisclosure of a material fact or by a representation of fact which was false in some material particular. What is contemplated under the above provision is that the policy must have been obtained by the party as a result of the non-disclosure of material facts at the time of obtaining the policy. What is contemplated under the above provision is that the policy must have been obtained by the party as a result of the non-disclosure of material facts at the time of obtaining the policy. In this case, the vehicle was insured on 14.7.1986 as a private car and the insurance premium was paid on that basis. The case of the appellant is that subsequently the owner of the vehicle had altered the character of the vehicle on 31.7.1996 and thereby used it as a contract carriage. From these allegations we cannot say that the owner of the vehicle has misrepresented the facts on 14.7.1986 at the time of obtaining the policy. On that day, it was a private car and admittedly the alternation was made only on 31.7.1986. Therefore, there is no violation of the provisions contained in S.96(2)(c). 4. It was next argued that there had been a breach of conditions prescribed in clause (a) of S.96(2)(b)(i). In view of this clause, the insurer who has been given the notice of claim petition by the Tribunal, is entitled to defend the action if there has been a breach of conditions of the policy excluding the use of the vehicle for hire or reward, where the vehicle is on the date of the contract or insurance a vehicle not covered by a permit to ply for hire or reward. The submission made by the counsel is that on the date of accident the vehicle was used as a contract carriage not covered by the permit available at the time the contract was executed. The argument is that the Insurance Company is not liable to pay the compensation to the claimants in this case. There is no merit in this contention too. The liability to pay the compensation to a third party by the insurer is a statutory liability which cannot be taken away because of the violation of the policy conditions by the owner of the vehicle. In this context, it is apt to refer the decision of the Division Bench of the Orissa High Court in Hindustan General Ins. Society Ltd. v. Kausalya Rani Das (1972 A.CJ.13). There the Division Bench held that the right of third parties to get compensation from the insurer being a statutory one, is independent of the contracted rights and obligations between the insurer and the assured. Society Ltd. v. Kausalya Rani Das (1972 A.CJ.13). There the Division Bench held that the right of third parties to get compensation from the insurer being a statutory one, is independent of the contracted rights and obligations between the insurer and the assured. Therefore, the non-disclosure or concealment of material facts by the assured at the time of obtaining (tie policy or any contravention of the condition of the policy by Mm could have no effect on the statutory rights of the third parties to claim compensation from the Insurance Company. The insurer could not escape its statutory liability so far as third parties were concerned. 5. Counsel for the respondent has brought to out notice the decision of the Supreme Court in New Asiatic Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pessumal Dhanamal Aswani & Ors. (AIR 1964 SC 1736). The following passage from the above decision is apposite in this context: "Thus, the contract between the insured and the company may not provide for all the liabilities which the company has to undertake vis-a-vis the third parties, in view of the provisions of the Act. We are of opinion that once the company had undertaken liability to third parties incurred by the persons specified in the policy, the third parties right to recover any amount under or by virtue of the provisions of the Act is not affected by any condition in the policy." 6. In view of the reasons aforesaid, we do not propose to interfere with the award passed by the Tribunal. So also do not propose to disturb the observation of the Tribunal that the Insurance Company is entitled to recover the amount which is paid to the claimant as per the award from the owner of the vehicle: The appeal is accordingly dismissed.