Judgment ( 1. ) THIS order shall also govern the disposal of M. A. Nos. 5/08, 8/08, 1232/08, 1233/08, 1237/08, 1241/08, 1242/08, 1243/08, 1244/08, 1246/ 08, 1249/08, 1253/08, 1254/08, 1255/08, 408/09 and 409/09. ( 2. ) THE appellant-Insurance Company has filed this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the award dated 25. 9. 2007, passed by the vith Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Gwalior in Claim Case No. 20/ 2007. All the appeals filed by the insurance Company are against the awards passed by the various Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal out of the same accident. Because the accident occurred in a passenger vehicle and all the awards are with regard to same accident, hence, all the appeals have been taken together and heard finally. In all the appeals the Insurance Company has challenged the award questioning its liability to indemnify the insured. ( 3. ) ON 6. 2. 2006, a passenger bus bearing registration No. M. P. 06-B-2567 had been going from Morena to Vijaypur. A number of passengers bad been travelling in the aforesaid bus. A passenger boarded at Kolarus with a small potli and during journey in the bus, he smoked a bidi, due to smoking, the potli caught fire and because inflammable material was in the potli, hence, the bus caught fire and ultimately, the bus was stopped at the police station and in the aforesaid accident near about 18 passengers had been died and number of persons received serious injuries. The report of the accident was lodged at the police station Kolarus, District morena and police registered an offence against the driver of the bus vide crime no. 30/2006 under Section 304/34 of IPC. Subsequently, an offence under Section 356 of Explosive Act has also been registered. The police filed charge-sheet before the J. M. F. C. , Sabalgarh. The claimants filed claim applications before the Claims tribunal for compensation. They pleaded that accident occurred due to negligence of the driver of the bus. It was insured by the non-applicant No. 3- Insurance company, hence, the Insurance Company, owner and driver of the bus are jointly and severally liable for payment of compensation. ( 4. The claimants filed claim applications before the Claims tribunal for compensation. They pleaded that accident occurred due to negligence of the driver of the bus. It was insured by the non-applicant No. 3- Insurance company, hence, the Insurance Company, owner and driver of the bus are jointly and severally liable for payment of compensation. ( 4. ) THE Insurance Company before the Claims Tribunal had taken plea that there was no permit to ply on the route of the bus, hence, the bus had been driven in contravention of the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy. Consequently, the Insurance Company is not liable to indemnify the insured. ( 5. ) THE Claims Tribunal has held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus bearing registration No. M. P. 06-B-2567. The bus was insured at the relevant time by the Insurance Company. The driver had a valid driving licence and there was no violation of Insurance Policy. The tribunal has further held that the owner, driver and Insurance Company are jointly and severally liable for payment of compensation. ( 6. ) LEARNED counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company has submitted that there was no permit on the rout of the bus and it had been driven in violation and contravention of terms and conditions of Insurance Policy. It was over-crowded and there was a sudden explosion in the bus, for that purpose, the vehicle was not insured. Hence, the Insurance Company is not liable to indemnify the insured. ( 7. ) CONTRARY to this, learned counsel for all the claimants-respondents have submitted that there was valid permit of the route and the vehicle was covered by permit at the relevant time. Hence, there is no violation of any terms and conditions of Insurance Policy. Learned counsel for all the claimants further submitted that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver and the conductor of the bus. It was the duty of the conductor to check the passenger and the employees of the owner have failed to perform their duties. It has further been submitted that the bus was not over-crowded and the Tribunal has rightly held that the Insurance Company is liable to indemnify the insured. It was the duty of the conductor to check the passenger and the employees of the owner have failed to perform their duties. It has further been submitted that the bus was not over-crowded and the Tribunal has rightly held that the Insurance Company is liable to indemnify the insured. In support of their contentions, learned counsels relied on the following judgments :- (i) 1994 ACJ 1 (G. M. K. S. R. T. C. Vs. Susamma Thomas); (ii) 1996 ACJ 581 (Balwant Yadav Vs. Sarla); (iii) (1998) 3 SCC 145 (Tasnimtaj Vs. M. D. K. S. R. T. C.); (iv) 2006 ACJ 941 (Lalita Devi Vs. Mewa Singh); (v) 2006 ACJ 2015 (Sahjahan Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd.); (vi) 2006 (3) TAG 128 MP (Phool Kunwar Vs. Sourab ). (vii) 2006 ACJ 1058 (Vijoy Kumar Vs. Bidyadher); (viii) 2007 ACJ 1577 M. P. (Deepa Vs. M. P. S. R. T. C.); and ix) 2009 ACJ 1298 (Sarla Varma Vs. Delhi Transport); ( 8. ) THE facts mentioned in M. A. No. 1266/07 filed against the award dated 25. 9. 2007, passed in Claim Case No20/2007 have been taken into consideration because in the present case, this Court has not decided quantum of compensation and the appeal has been considered only with regard to liability of the Insurance company to indemnify the insured, hence, the facts which are necessary for decision on the aforesaid point have been taken into consideration. ( 9. ) MR. Kailash Narayan Thapak, who was working as R. T. O. Morena in his evidence stated that initially a permit was sanctioned in favour of Rakesh Singh tomar, which was valid from 7. 2. 1996 to 6. 2. 2001. The permit was renewed vide order dated 31. 1. 2001 passed by the Regional Transport Authority for the period from 7. 2. 2001 to 6. 2. 2006. Earlier, a vehicle bearing registration No. M. P. 06-A/ 9200 had been covered by the aforesaid permit. The sitting capacity of the vehicle was 50+2. Subsequently, vide order dated 20. 9. 2005, a vehicle owned by Sobaran singh Sikarwar bearing registration No. M. P. 06b/2567 was covered by the aforesaid permit. On 20. 9. 2005, a letter was issued to Smt. Sunita Tomar, wife of Rakesh singh Tomar mentioning the fact that Mr. The sitting capacity of the vehicle was 50+2. Subsequently, vide order dated 20. 9. 2005, a vehicle owned by Sobaran singh Sikarwar bearing registration No. M. P. 06b/2567 was covered by the aforesaid permit. On 20. 9. 2005, a letter was issued to Smt. Sunita Tomar, wife of Rakesh singh Tomar mentioning the fact that Mr. Rakesh Singh Tomar had been died and after his death no application has been submitted to the office for transfer of permit. Thereafter, Smt. Sunita Tomar submitted an application on 30. 1. 2006 along with affidavit for transfer of permit because her husband Mr. Rakesh Singh Tomar was died on 27. 2. 2004. The Regional Authority vide order dated 5. 10. 2006 rejected the application of Smt. Sunita Tomar for renewal of permit. The then Branch manager of Insurance Company working in Regional Office, Gwalior Mr. Banwarilal Gupta in his evidence stated that vehicle No. M. P. 06b/2567 was insured by the Insurance Company vide Policy No. 321401/31/04/6300004185 for a period of 2. 3. 2005 to 1. 3. 2006. The policy was issued in favour of Sobaran Singh Sikarwar by the Insurance Company of Morena. The policy was for passenger carrying vehicle under commercial vehicle package. As per the aforesaid policy, the company charged a premium of 22 passengers, driver and conductor and risk of 22 passengers was covered. He further stated that on date of accident, the insurance holder Mr. Sobaran Singh Sikarwar had no effective permit to ply the bus, hence, there was violation of terms and conditions of Insurance Policy. He further stated that in the bus, explosive had been carried out and due to the explosion, the bus caught fire, in such circumstances, as per the policy, the insurance Company is not liable to indemnify the insured. ( 10. ) FROM aforesaid two evidence, undisputed facts of the case are that initially a permit was granted in favour of Rakesh Singh Tomar which was valid for the period from 7. 2. 1996 to 6. 2. 2001. It was further renewed vide order dated 31. 1. 2001, passed by the Regional Transport Authority for the period from 7. 2. 2001 to 6:2. 2006. Mr. Rakesh Singh Tomar was died on 27. 2. 2004. Earlier the bus bearing registration No. M. P. 06 A/9200 of the sitting capacity 50+2 had been plying on the route covered by the permit. 1. 2001, passed by the Regional Transport Authority for the period from 7. 2. 2001 to 6:2. 2006. Mr. Rakesh Singh Tomar was died on 27. 2. 2004. Earlier the bus bearing registration No. M. P. 06 A/9200 of the sitting capacity 50+2 had been plying on the route covered by the permit. Subsequently, another vehicle of the ownership of Sobaran Singh Sikarwar bearing registration No. M. P. 06b/2567, sitting capacity of 22+2 has been covered by the permit vide order dated 20. 9. 2005. It is an admitted fact that before the aforesaid order, the original holder of permit Mr. Rakesh Singh Tomar died on 27. 2. 2004. As per the note-sheets filed before the tribunal, Ex. D-8, Smt. Sunita Singh Tomar filed a revision before the State transport Authority. It was registered as Case No. 403/3005 and the appellate authority vide order dated 20. 6. 2005 permitted Smt. Sunita Singh Tomar to change the timing of the route on the basis of compromise. . Thereafter Smt. Sunita Singh tomar submitted an application on 7. 9. 2005 to change the vehicle and cover another vehicle of the ownership of Mr. Sobaran Singh Sikarwar bearing registration No. M. P. 06b/2567, Model 205 to the permit. It has been mentioned in the notesheet that husband Smt. Sunita Singh Tomar, Mr. Rakesh Singh Tomar was the original permit holder and he was died, thereafter within the period of 90 days, the legal representatives of Rakesh Singh Tomar did not submit any application for transfer of permit, hence, in such circumstances, whether the vehicle no. M. P. 06b/2567 could be covered by the permit which was issued in favour of mr. Rakesh Singh Tomar. In spite of that objection, the authority issued order covering the permit in favour of Mr. Rakesh Singh Tomar for the vehicle bearing registration No. M. P. 06b/2567 owned by Sobaran Singh Sikarwar, ( 11. ) FROM the aforesaid evidence, it is clear that initially permit was issued in favour of Rakesh Singh Tomar for the period from 7. 2. 1996 to 6. 2. 2001. Thereafter it was renewed vide order dated 31. 1. 2001 for the period from 7. 2. 2001 to 6. 2. 2006 mr. Rakesh Singh Tomar died on 27. 2. 2004. ) FROM the aforesaid evidence, it is clear that initially permit was issued in favour of Rakesh Singh Tomar for the period from 7. 2. 1996 to 6. 2. 2001. Thereafter it was renewed vide order dated 31. 1. 2001 for the period from 7. 2. 2001 to 6. 2. 2006 mr. Rakesh Singh Tomar died on 27. 2. 2004. Thereafter no application for transfer of permit by the legal representatives of Rakesh Singh Tomar was filed and for the first time Smt. Sunita Singh Tomar filed an application for transfer the permit in her name on 30. 1. 2006, that was rejected by the Regional Transport Authority vide order dated 5. 10. 2006. A letter was also issued to Smt. Sunita Tomar one 20 9. 2005 for submitting an application for transfer of permit. However, vide order of Regional Transport Authority, vehicle No. M. P. 06b/2567 Owned by Mr. Sobaran singh Sikarwar has been covered by the permit vide order dated 20. 9. 2005. Tit application was filed by Smt. Sunita Tomar and ultimately oh the aforesaid date, there was no permit in the name of Smt. Sunita Tomar. ( 12. ) SECTION 82 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 prescribes procedure with regard to transfer of permit which is as under :- 82. Transfer of permit- (1) Save as provided in sub-section (2), a permit shall not be transferable from one person to another except with the permission of the transport authority which granted the permit and shall not, without such permission, operate to confer on any person to whom a vehicle covered by the permit is transferred any right to use that vehicle in the manner authorised by the permit. (2) Where the holder of a permit dies, the person succeeding to the possession of the vehicle covered by the permit may, for a period of three months, use the permit as if it had been granted to himself: provided that such person has, within ; thirty days of the death of the holder, informed the transport authority which granted the permit of the death of the holder and of his own intention to use the permit: provided further that no permit shall be so used after the date on which it would have ceased to be effective without renewal in the hands of the deceased holder. (3) The transport authority may, on application made to it within three months of the death of the holder of a permit, transfer the permit to the person succeeding to the possession of the vehicles covered by the permit: provided that the Transport Authority may entertain an application made after the expiry of the said period of three months if it is satisfied that the applicant was prevented by good and sufficient cause from making an application within the time specified. It is clear from the aforesaid Section 82 (2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 that where the holder of a permit dies, the person succeeding to the possession of the vehicle covered by the permit may, for a period of three months, use the permit as if it had been granted to him with the condition of the proviso. In the present case, the original permit holder Mr. Rakesh Singh Tomar was died on 27. 2. 2004, at that time a vehicle bearing registration No. M. P. 06a/9200 was covered by the permit, in that circumstances, the owner of the vehicle bearing registration no. M. P. 06a/9200 had a right to ply the aforesaid bus for a period of three months under the aforesaid permit and thereafter without transfer, no person was authorised to ply any bus under the permit granted to Mr. Rakesh Singh Tomar, however, in the present case, wife of Rakesh Singh Tomar submitted an application before the authority for covering another vehicle under the permit and the Regional Authority vide order dated 20,9. 2005 covered the vehicle No. M. P. 06b/2567, owned by Mr sobaran Singh. The application was filed by Smt. Sunita Singh Tomar, at that-time there was no permit in the name of Sunita Singh Tomar. ( 13. ) ADMITTEDLY, Smt. Sunita Singh Tomar submitted an application for transfer of permit on 31. 1. 2006 and that has been rejected vide dated 5. 10. 2006, Admittedly, the permit granted in favour of Rakesh Singh Tomar has never been transferred in the name of Sunita Singh Tomar. The accident occurred on 6. 2. 2006 and Mr rakesh Singh Tomar was died on 27. 2. 1. 2006 and that has been rejected vide dated 5. 10. 2006, Admittedly, the permit granted in favour of Rakesh Singh Tomar has never been transferred in the name of Sunita Singh Tomar. The accident occurred on 6. 2. 2006 and Mr rakesh Singh Tomar was died on 27. 2. 2004, admittedly, on the date of accident, there was no permit at all and the bus No. M. P. 06a/9200 was covered by permit which was in the name of Rakesh Singh Tomar, who died hear about two years before. In such circumstances, it is clear that when the accident occurred the vehicle had been plying without any permit. As per the Insurance Policy, Ex D/1, the policy covers risk if vehicle used under a permit within the meaning of the motor Vehicles Act, 1988. the policy has been issued under passenger carrying commercial vehicle policy package. Hence, it is clear that there was violation of terms and conditions of the policy. ( 14. ) HONble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited vs. Challa Bharathamma and others, reported in 2004 ACJ 2094, has held as under with regard to liability of the Insurance Company in the case where the vehicle had been plying without permit :- "the insurer resisted the claim on the ground that the insured had not obtained permit to ply the vehicle and, therefore, in terms of the policy of insurance the insurer had no liability. Tribunal accepted the plea. High Court held that insurer was liable to indemnify the award. It was of the view that since there was no permit, the question of violation of any condition thereof does not arise. The view is clearly fallacious. A person without permit to ply a vehicle cannot be placed at a better pedestal vis-a-vis one who has a permit, but has violated any condition thereof. " ( 15. ) THE Division Bench of this Court in the case of Ram Sujan Tiwari Vs. Sita gupta and others, reported in 2009 ACJ 437, has held as under with regard to liability of the Insurance Company in a case where the vehicle had been driven or a route in which permit was not granted when accident was occurred :- "26. Since the vehicle was being driven on the route for which the permit was not granted, hence contravened the conditions of permit. Since the vehicle was being driven on the route for which the permit was not granted, hence contravened the conditions of permit. It such circumstances, the insurance company cannot be held liable to pay compensation. The Tribunal has rightly exonerated the insurance company from its liability of payment. " ( 16. ) THE Honble Supreme Court in the case of New India Assurance Company ltd. v. . Sadanand Mukhi and others, reported in (2009) 2 SCC 417 , has held as under with regard to liability of the Insurance Company to indemnify the insured "11. Provisions relating to grant of compensation occurring in Chapters XI and XII of the Act have been enacted by Parliament in order to achieve the purpose and object stated therein. Section 146 of the Act lays down the requirements for insurance against third-party risk. Where a third-party risk is involved, an insurance policy is required to be mandatorily taken out. The requirements of policies and the limits of liability, however, have been stated in section 147 of the Act. Section 147 (1) (b) of the Act, reads as under: "147. Section 146 of the Act lays down the requirements for insurance against third-party risk. Where a third-party risk is involved, an insurance policy is required to be mandatorily taken out. The requirements of policies and the limits of liability, however, have been stated in section 147 of the Act. Section 147 (1) (b) of the Act, reads as under: "147. Requirements of policies and limits of liability.- (1) In order to comply with the requirements of this Chapter, a policy of insurance must be a policy which -* * * (b) insures the person or classes of persons specified in the policy to the extent specified in sub-section (2)- (i) against any liability which may be incurred by him in respect of the death of or bodily injury to any person, including owner of the goods or his authorised representative carried in the vehicle or damage to any property of a third party caused by or arising out of the use of the vehicle in a public place; (ii) against the death of or bodily injury to any passenger of a public service vehicle caused by or arising out of the use of the vehicle in a public place; provided that a policy shall not be required- (i) to cover liability in respect of the death, arising out of and in the course of his employment, of the employee of a person insured by the policy or in respect of bodily injury sustained by such an employee arising out of and in the course of his employment other than a liability arising under the Workmens Compensation act, 1923 ( 8 of 1923), in respect of the death of, or bodily injury to, any such employee- (a) engaged in driving the vehicle, or (b) if it is a public service vehicle engaged as a conductor of the vehicle or in examining tickets on the vehicle, or (c) if it is a goods carriage, being carried in the vehicle, or (ii) to cover any contractual liability. Explanation.- For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that the death of or bodily injury to any person or damage to any property of a third party shall be deemed to have been caused by or to have arisen out of, the use of a vehicle in a public place notwithstanding that the person who is dead or injured or the property which is damaged was not in a public place at the time of the accident, if the act or omission which led to the accident occurred in a public place. " the provisions of the Act, therefore, provide for two types of insurance - one statutory in nature and the other contractual in nature. Whereas the insurance company is bound to compensate the owner or the driver of the motor vehicle in case any person dies or suffers injury as a result of an accident; in case involving owner of the vehicle or others are proposed to be covered, an additional premium is required to be paid for covering their life and property. 12. It is not a case where even Section 163-A of the Act was resorted to. The respondents filed an application under Section 166 of the Act Only an Act policy was taken in respect of the motor vehicle. Submission of the learned counsel that being a two-wheeler, the vehicle was more prone to accident and, therefore, whosoever becomes victim of an accident arising out of the use thereof would come within the purview of the term "a person" as provided for in Section 147 of the Act, in our opinion, is not correct. 13. Contract of insurance of a motor vehicle is governed by the provisions of the Insurance Act. The terms of the policy as also the quantum of premium payable for insuring the vehicle in question depends not only upon the carrying capacity of the vehicle but also on the purpose for which the same was being used and the extent of the risk covered thereby. By taking an "act policy", the owner of a vehicle fulfills his statutory obligation as contained in section 147 of the Act. The liability of the insurer is either statutory or contractual. If it is contractual its liability extends to the risk covered by the policy of insurance. If additional risks are sought to be covered, additional premium has to be paid. The liability of the insurer is either statutory or contractual. If it is contractual its liability extends to the risk covered by the policy of insurance. If additional risks are sought to be covered, additional premium has to be paid. If the contention of the learned counsel is to be accepted, then to a large extent, the provisions of the Insurance Act become otiose. By reason of such an interpretation the insurer would be liable to cover risk of not only a third party but also others who would not otherwise come within the purview thereof. It is one thing to say that life is uncertain and the same is required to be covered, but it is another thing to say that we must read a statute so as to grant relief to a person not contemplated by the Act. It is not for the court, unless a statute is found to be unconstitutional, to consider the rationality thereof. Even otherwise the provisions of the Act read with the provisions of the Insurance Act appear to be wholly rational. " ( 17. ) THE Honble Supreme Court in the case of Oriental Insurance Company limited Vs. Jhuma Saha (Smt.) and others, reported in (2007) 9 263, has held as under:- "6. The said contention of the appellant, however, did not find favour with the Motor Vehicles Accidents Claims Tribunal which, inter alia, held that the vehicle being insured and an additional premium for the death of the driver or conductor having been paid, the liability was covered by the insurance policy. " ( 18. ) FROM the above principle of law laid down by the Honble Supreme Court and the Division Bench of this Court, it is clear that if there is a violation of terms and conditions of the insurance policy, then the insurance company is not liable to indemnify the insured. In the present case, it is clear that the original permit holder mr. Rakesh Singh Tomar was died on 27. 2. In the present case, it is clear that the original permit holder mr. Rakesh Singh Tomar was died on 27. 2. 2004, thereafter due to some misconception or manipulation, the owner of the bus got the bus No. M. P. 06a/ 9200, which made the accident covered the vehicle and, in my opinion, the owner of the vehicle No. M. P. 06b/2567, non-applicant No. 2 played a fraud and he got his vehicle covered under the permit which was in the name of a death person, who was died two years before. In such circumstances, the owner is not entitled to cover his risk under the insurance policy. In the present case, the appellant-Insurance Company is not liable to indemnify the insured. The Claims Tribunal has committed an error of law in holding that the Insurance Company is liable to indemnify the insured. ( 19. ) WITH regard to other arguments raised by learned counsel for the appellant that the bus was overloaded, however, there is no clear evidence on this aspect that how many passengers had been travelling at the time of accident in the bus. It is also a fact that accident occurred due to fire, however, there is no complete evidence that there was explosion in the bus, hence, the aforesaid point raised by the learned counsel for the appellants cannot be decided in favour of Insurance company. ( 20. ) AFTER going through the record of the case, this Court has observed that the authority, who has passed the order dated 20. 9. 2005 by which the bus No. M. P. 06b/ 2567 of the ownership of Mr. Sobaran Singh has been covered under the permit, which was in the name of Mr. Rakesh Singh Tomar is clear inviolation of statutory provision of Section 82 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The authority has not applied its mind at all that a vehicle could not be covered by a permit which was in the name of a dead person, who was died on 27. 2. 2004, near about one and-a-half years before. This Court feels that the act of the authority is a naked violation of statutory provision. ( 21. ) AS per the judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in the case of National insurance Company Limited Vs. 2. 2004, near about one and-a-half years before. This Court feels that the act of the authority is a naked violation of statutory provision. ( 21. ) AS per the judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in the case of National insurance Company Limited Vs. Challa Bharathamma and others, reported in 2004 ACJ 2094, where the Honble Supreme Court has held that the Insurance company shall pay the compensation awarded by the Tribunal to the claimants and it could recover the same from the owner in the like manner, which is as under :- "13. The residual question is what would be the appropriate direction. Considering the beneficial object of the Act, it would be proper for the insurer to Satisfy the award, though in law it has no liability. In some cases the insurer has been given the option and liberty to recover the amount from the insured. For the purpose of recovering the amount paid from the owner, the insurer shall not be required to file a suit. If may initiate a proceeding before the concerned executing court as if the dispute between the insurer and the owner was the subject matter of determination before the tribunal and the issue is decided against the owner and in favour of the insurer. Before release of the amount to the claimants, owner of the offending vehicle has furnish security for the entire amount which the insurer will pay to the claimants. The offending vehicle shall be attached, as a part of the security. If necessary arises the executing court shall take assistance of the concerned regional Transport Authority. The executing court shall pass appropriate orders in accordance with law as to the manner in which the owner of the vehicle shall make payment to the insurer. In case there is any default it shall be open to the executing court to direct realisation by disposal of the securities to be furnished or from any other property or properties of the owner of the vehicle, i. e. , the insured. In the instant case considering the quantum involved we leave it to the discretion of the insurer to decide whether it would take steps for recovery of the amount from the insured. In the instant case considering the quantum involved we leave it to the discretion of the insurer to decide whether it would take steps for recovery of the amount from the insured. " In the present case, the owner of the offending vehicle got the insurance policy although original permit holder was died and at the time of accident the insurance policy was in existence. In view of the above facts and principle of law laid down by the Honble Supreme Court, in my opinion, it would be proper that the insurance company should pay the amount of compensation to the claimant and it is permitted to recover the same from owner of the vehicle. ( 22. ) CONSEQUENTLY, all the appeals filed by the Insurance Company are hereby allowed. The appellant-Insurance Company is exonerated to indemnify the insured. However, it is directed that the Insurance Company shall pay the compensation to the claimants in view of the facts mentioned above in the order and judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited vs. Challa Bharathamma and others, reported in 2004 ACJ 2094 and it could recover the same from the owner of the vehicle. It is hereby directed that a copy of the order be also sent to the State Transport Department for information. No order as to cost. Appeal allowed.