JUDGMENT : S. Siri Jagan, J. The appellants are the first and second respondents in O.P. (MV)No.308 of 2004 before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ernakulam. The appellants were the owner and driver of an Educational Institution bus. The same was involved in an accident consequent to which, the father of the respondents 1 and 2 died. The respondents filed the OP seeking compensation for the injuries and consequent death of their father. The Tribunal awarded Rs. 3,32,000/- as compensation with interest and costs. But on the ground that the appellants did not have a permit for the Educational Institution bus, the Insurance Company was absolved from liability. The appellants are challenging that part of the award by which the Insurance Company was absolved from liability. 2. The contention of the appellants is that at the relevant time although by virtue of an amendment to the Motor Vehicles Act in 2000, Educational Institution buses were also required to take out a permit, the authority issuing permits were not aware as to how the same should be issued. Therefore, the authority was not issuing permits to Educational Institution buses instead they requested the Central Government to clarify as to how Educational Institution vehicles should be classified for the purpose of issuing permit. On receipt of clarification from the Central Government, the Transport Commissioner, Thiruvananthapuram issued communication dated 12.2.2004 to the Secretaries of all Regional Transport Authorities issuing directions as to how permits should be issued to Educational Institution buses, where after only R.T.O's started issuing permits to Educational Institution buses. It is under the above circumstances, the appellants could not obtain a permit for their vehicle is the contention raised. Therefore, according to the appellants, the appellants are not at fault in the matter and therefore, the Tribunal went wrong in absolving the Insurance Company from liability. 3. The learned counsel for the Insurance Company submits that the contention of the appellant is not valid for not taking out a permit or at least for applying for a permit. According to him, once the amendment came into force in 2000, it became mandatory for Educational Institution buses to obtain permits. 3. The learned counsel for the Insurance Company submits that the contention of the appellant is not valid for not taking out a permit or at least for applying for a permit. According to him, once the amendment came into force in 2000, it became mandatory for Educational Institution buses to obtain permits. Simply because the RTO's were not sure as to how the Educational Institution buses were to be classified, the same does not absolve the appellants from the liability to at least applying for a permit, which also the appellant has not done. He also submits that the appellants could have at least applied for a permit as a transport vehicle which also the appellants have not done. Therefore, according to the learned counsel for the Insurance Company, the learned Tribunal rightly absolved the Insurance Company from liability to indemnify the appellant in respect of the compensation awarded to the respondents 1 and 2. 4. We have considered the rival contentions in detail. May be, strictly construed the appellants were statutorily required to take out a permit. But from the communication No.C1/9200/TC/2000 dated 12.2.2004 issued by the Transport Commissioner, Thiruvananthapuram to the Secretaries of all Regional Transport Authorities it is clear that the R.T.O's were not aware as to how permits should be issued to Educational Institution buses and they had addressed the Central Government for clarification as to how Educational Institution vehicle should be classified for the purpose. It is as per that communication the formalities for issuing permits to Educational Institution buses were settled. From the same it is abundantly clear that pending receipt of the clarification, the Regional Transport Authorities were not issuing permits to Educational Institution buses because of want of clarity as to how the same should be done. In such circumstances, even if the appellant had applied for a permit, the same would not have been considered by the R.T.O. As such, we are of opinion that the appellants could not have been faulted for not obtaining permit at the relevant time. In the above circumstances, we are inclined to take a lenient view and to hold that the Tribunal went wrong in absolving the Insurance Company from liability to indemnify the appellant. Accordingly, that part of the award by which the Insurance Company has been absolved from liability to indemnify the appellants in respect of the award amount is set aside. In the above circumstances, we are inclined to take a lenient view and to hold that the Tribunal went wrong in absolving the Insurance Company from liability to indemnify the appellant. Accordingly, that part of the award by which the Insurance Company has been absolved from liability to indemnify the appellants in respect of the award amount is set aside. If the Insurance Company has already deposited the amount before the Tribunal, the direction of the Tribunal permitting the Insurance Company to recover the said amount from the appellants shall not be enforced. The appeal is allowed as above.