JUDGMENT : Surinder Singh, J. 1. This judgment shall dispose of the above titled appeals filed by the Insurance Company having arisen from the same accident but from different awards. The moot question, in the instant appeals is whether the Insurance Company is liable to indemnify the insured for the amount of compensation on account of breach of the terms and conditions of the policy viz-a-viz the vehicle in question, being plied on a road for which it was not having permit. 2. The facts which give rise to the present appeals can be stated thus. On 17.2.2009 mini bus bearing registration No. PB-01-3858 (Tata 407) was carrying a marriage party from village Singan District Una to village Bichoi in Hoshiarpur (Pb). It is alleged that due to rash and negligent driving of respondent Ajay Kumar its driver, it met with an accident and fell on the National Highway near village Polian in the State of Himachal Pradesh, causing death of some of the passengers and injuries to others. As such, the injured as well as the legal representatives/ dependents of the deceased filed their claim petitions u/s 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. 3. The claim was resisted and contested by the Insured as well as by the Insurance Company. The insured denied rash and negligent driving by its driver whereas the insurance company denied its liability on the ground that it was over loaded and being plied on the different route than permitted. 4. Consequently, on the pleadings of the parties, the learned Tribunal, inter alia, framed various issues and the findings of the learned tribunal now on main Issue No. 5 "whether there has been a violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy for want of road permit?", are contentious. 5. Admittedly, the aforesaid offending vehicle was authorized to ply vide tourist permit Ext. PW4/B in MAC Petition No. 13 of 2009, Balbir Singh versus Ajay Kumar and others, (FAO No. 366 of 2010) in various States but it had paid fee only for Punjab State and not for other States, including the State of H.P. Thus it cannot be said to have a valid permit for the State of Himachal Pradesh where the accident in question had taken place. In National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. In National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Challa Bharathamma and Others, the apex Court in para 12 clearly held and took a definite view by making following observations: - 12. High Court 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--vis one who has a permit, but has violated any condition thereof. Plying of a vehicle without a permit is an infraction. Therefore, in terms of Section 149(2) defence is available to the insurer on that aspect. The acceptability of the stand is a matter of adjudication. The question of policy being operative had no relevance for the issue regarding liability of insurer. High Court was, therefore, not justified in holding the insurer liable. 6. In J.B. Pipes Vs. Madan Lal and Others, the Hon'ble Chief Justice of this Court while relying upon the above judgment of apex court observed that Section 149 (2) of the Act is very clear on the subject. It clearly lays down that it is open to an insurer to defend a claim on the ground of the breach of a policy condition excluding the use of vehicle for hire or reward where the vehicle is not covered by a permit to ply for hire or reward. The expression, "where the vehicle is not covered by a permit to ply for hire or reward", includes a situation where the vehicle is being plied in an area which is outside the coverage of the route permit. Thus, relying upon the judgment of the apex court, it was held that the insured had violated the terms and conditions of the policy and insurer was liable to pay the compensation. 7. Therefore, in the instant case, on the above admitted position, the vehicle was being plied on a route for which it did not pay the fee thus not authorized to ply. In that situation it would be a breach of the policy. 8. Further, the vehicle in question had admittedly 13 passengers against the permissible limit of 12. 7. Therefore, in the instant case, on the above admitted position, the vehicle was being plied on a route for which it did not pay the fee thus not authorized to ply. In that situation it would be a breach of the policy. 8. Further, the vehicle in question had admittedly 13 passengers against the permissible limit of 12. But the learned Tribunal rightly took note of the statement of RW3 respondent Ajay Kumar that there was no conductor in the said bus and it was one of the passengers was liable to be treated conductor and passengers were expected to do as directed by the driver. Hence all 13 passengers were entitled to compensation from the insurance company and it had to satisfy 13 highest awards in descending order following the ratio laid by the Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Anjna Shyam and others 2007, ACJ, Volume IV 2130 where apex court held that the Insurance company was liable to pay the compensation to the passengers covered by the insurance policy as per permissible sitting capacity. Para 16 of the judgment of the judgment can usefully quoted as under: 16. Then arises the question, how to determine the compensation payable or how to quantify the compensation since there is no means of ascertaining who out of the overloaded passengers constitute the passengers covered by the insurance policy as permitted to be carried by the permit itself? As this court has indicated, the purpose of the Act is to bring benefit to the third parties who are either injured or dead in an accident. It serves a social purpose. Keeping that in mind, we think that the practical and proper course would be to hold that the insurance company in such a case, would be bound to cover the higher of the various awards and will be compelled to deposit the higher of the amounts of compensation awarded to the extent of the number of passengers covered by the insurance policy. Illustratively, we may put it like this. In the case on hand, 42 passengers were the permitted passengers and they are the ones who have been insured by the insurance company. 90 persons have either died or got injured in the accident. Awards have been passed for varied sums. Illustratively, we may put it like this. In the case on hand, 42 passengers were the permitted passengers and they are the ones who have been insured by the insurance company. 90 persons have either died or got injured in the accident. Awards have been passed for varied sums. The Tribunal should take into account, the higher of the 42 awards made, add them up and direct the insurance company to deposit the lump sum. Thus, the liability of the insurance company would be to pay the compensation awarded to 42 out of the 90 passengers. It is to ensure that the maximum benefit is derived by the insurance taken for the passengers of the vehicle, that we hold that the 42 awards to be satisfied by the insurance company would be the 42 awards in the descending order starting from the highest of the awards. In other words, the higher of the 42 awards will be taken into account and it would be the sum total of those higher 42 awards that would be the amount that the insurance company would be liable to deposit. It will be for the Tribunal thereafter to direct distribution of the money so deposited by the insurance company proportionately to all the claimants, here all the 90 and leave all the claimants to recover the balance from the owner of the vehicle. In such cases, it will be necessary for the Tribunal, even at the initial stage, to make appropriate orders to ensure that the amount could be recovered from the owner by ordering attachment or by passing other restrictive orders against the owner so as to ensure the satisfaction in full of the awards that may be passed ultimately. 9. The above principle of law was further relied by the apex court in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. K.M. Poonam and Others, 10. Therefore, keeping in view the above settled position of law, it can safely be concluded that when the accident in question has taken place by the alleged offending vehicle on a road for which it was not having permit and the passengers are more than the permissible capacity, the insured is liable to pay the amount of compensation and the insurance company is not liable to indemnify the insured. But it is held at the first instance the Insurance Company shall satisfy the award passed by the learned Tribunal and the company may recover it from the insured, by filing an execution petition before the learned tribunal. Consequently, the appeals stand accordingly allowed to the above extent. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.