JUDGMENT 1. - These appeals are directed against the judgment and award dated 29.07.2013 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bhilwara ('the Tribunal'), whereby, for the accident, which occurred on 10.03.2008 involving Bus RJ-06P-1931, the respondent-claimants have been awarded various sums. 2. The facts in brief may be noticed thus: the claimants and/or other persons were travelling as part of a marriage party in Bus No.RJ-06P-1931, when at around 4:30 AM on account of rash and negligent driving of driver of the bus, the same turned turtle, resulting in death of Ladu Lal and Smt. Sangari and Smt. Santoki alias Santoshi, Bardu and Bhagwati Lal suffered simple and grievous injuries; applications for compensation ('the applications') were filed by the legal representatives of deceased Ladu Lal and Smt. Sangari and the persons injured in the said accident; reply to the applications was only filed by non-claimant No.3 - appellant Insurance Company, as the matter proceeded ex parte against driver and owner of the bus; the Insurance Company raised several issues including the fact that the accident occurred on account of mechanical failure; the driver was not in possession of valid driving licence and there was no valid permit for plying the bus. 3. The Tribunal framed four issues and came to the conclusion that the accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving by the driver of the bus, which resulted in the death of/injury to the passengers. While dealing with the issue relating to liability of the Insurance Company, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the owner was in possession of valid permit for the route Bhilwara to Amli and on account of the fact that the witness produced by the appellant Insurance Company was not able to indicate whether the place of accident fell within the said permit area, came to the conclusion that it cannot be said that the bus was plying at any place other than the permitted route. No evidence was produced regarding absence of valid and effective driving licence by the appellant Insurance Company. 4. Further, considering the evidence available on record, the Tribunal determined the amount of compensation based on the evidence available on record and awarded various sums to the legal representatives of the deceased and the injured passengers/claimants. 5. No evidence was produced regarding absence of valid and effective driving licence by the appellant Insurance Company. 4. Further, considering the evidence available on record, the Tribunal determined the amount of compensation based on the evidence available on record and awarded various sums to the legal representatives of the deceased and the injured passengers/claimants. 5. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the vehicle in question was plying beyond the permitted route and merely because the place of accident was situated nearby the said route by itself cannot be a reason to assume that the vehicle was being operated under a valid permit and, consequently, on account of violation of policy conditions, the appellant Insurance Company cannot be held liable for payment of compensation. It was further submitted that the amount awarded by the Tribunal is excessive and, consequently, prayed that the appeal be allowed. 6. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant. 7. The plea raised by the appellant regarding the vehicle plying beyond the permitted route has not been accepted by the Tribunal by considering the evidence led by the appellant, whereby, NAW-1 Dinesh Kumar Hatwal appeared in the witness box and was not able to indicate the fact as to whether the accident occurred nearby the permitted route. 8. Even if, the plea raised by the Insurance Company is accepted, still in view of the law laid down by this Court in R.K. College v. Ramesh Chand & Ors., 2008 RAR 48 (Raj.) the Insurance Company cannot get away from the liability of payment of compensation. 9. This Court in the case of R.K. College (supra) observed thus:- "16. The insurer contested its liability in the present case taking the averment in the reply that at the time of accident, the vehicle was not covered under valid permit. The insurer also took a general plea that the vehicle owner has violated policy conditions. However, the allegation has been specified in the statement of its Administrative Officer to the effect that according the document Ex. NA-2, the vehicle was of 'All Rajasthan' permit; that the accident occurred on Jodhpur-Balotra nationalised route; and according to the permit Ex. NA-2, the said bus could not be plied on nationalised route. However, the allegation has been specified in the statement of its Administrative Officer to the effect that according the document Ex. NA-2, the vehicle was of 'All Rajasthan' permit; that the accident occurred on Jodhpur-Balotra nationalised route; and according to the permit Ex. NA-2, the said bus could not be plied on nationalised route. Thus, the precise allegation of the insurer in the present case has been of violation of the terms of permit for the vehicle being plied on a route not specified in the permit. The finding of the Tribunal is essentially to the same effect that there was contravention of the terms of permit; and then on the basis of such finding the Tribunal abruptly concluded that the insurer was entitled to be exonerated. The approach of the Tribunal is fundamentally incorrect. Neither there is any finding about breach of insurance policy condition by the insured nor there could be any. The insurance policy in the present case put the relevant condition while stating limitation as to use in the following words- "Use only under a contract carriage/stage carriage permit within the meaning of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1939." 17. For the purpose of present case, if the vehicle was found on a route not covered under the permit, it might be a case of violation of conditions of permit; but it cannot be said that by such fact alone, there occurred a breach of insurance policy condition. As noticed, the policy condition itself has been to use the vehicle only under a contract carriage/stage carriage permit. The defence available to the insurer under sub-clause (c) of Section 149(2)(a)(i) is of breach of such a policy condition that excludes the use of vehicle 'for a purpose' not allowed by the permit under which the vehicle is used. It is not the case of the insurer that the vehicle was not being used as a contract carriage or was being used for 'any purpose' other than that envisaged by the permit Ex. NA-2. Merely because the permit stated a condition that the vehicle could not be plied on nationalised route and violation of such condition of the permit is alleged, the same is not even a remote allegation on violation of insurance policy conditions; and is not of a defence permitted to the insurer by the statue. NA-2. Merely because the permit stated a condition that the vehicle could not be plied on nationalised route and violation of such condition of the permit is alleged, the same is not even a remote allegation on violation of insurance policy conditions; and is not of a defence permitted to the insurer by the statue. The principles noticed and expounded in Mohani Bai's case (supra) do directly apply to the present case too; and the decision in Challa Bharathamma's case (supra) is of no application because that was a case of the vehicle having no permit at all." 10. In view of the law laid down by this Court, there is no substance in the plea raised by the appellant Insurance Company regarding violation of policy conditions. 11. I have gone through the determination made by the Tribunal regarding compensation to be awarded to the legal representatives of the deceased/injured and except in Case No.189/2013 there appears no reason to interfere with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, which appears to be eminently just and reasonable.In view of the above discussion, there is no substance in the appeals and the same are, therefore, dismissed. The stay applications are also dismissed.Appeals dismissed. *******