ORDER Sanjay K. Agrawal, J. 1. This is insurer's appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (henceforth 'the Act, 1988') calling in question the legality and validity of the award dated 14-12-2012 passed by 3rd Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Durg (henceforth 'the Claims Tribunal') in Claim Case No. 101/2011 by which the claimants' application has partly been granted fastening liability upon the insurer to satisfy the impugned award. The Claims Tribunal, by the impugned award, granted compensation of ` 3,61,600/- along with interest @ 7.5%. The Claims Tribunal held that it has not been proved that the offending vehicle was being plied without necessary permit on the date of accident. 2. Shri H.B. Agrawal, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the appellant/insurer would submit that the Claims Tribunal has Committed legal error in holding that the offending vehicle did have a valid permit on the date of accident to ply the vehicle in the State of Chhattisgarh, therefore, the insurance company ought to be exonerated from liability of payment of the compensation. He would further submit that the award of interest @ 7.5% is on higher side. 3. Shri Goutam Khetrapal, learned counsel appearing for respondents No. 1 to 3/claimants would support the impugned award and oppose the appeal. 4. I have heard and considered the rival submissions and have perused the record of the claim case. 5. The Claims Tribunal, on the basis of National Permit and Authorisation (Ex. D-2 and D-3), has clearly recorded a finding that the offending vehicle was having a national permit to ply the vehicle in the States of Andhra Pradesh, Gujarat, Karnataka, Maharashtra and Tamil Nadu and at the time of accident, the offending vehicle was coming from Andhra Pradesh to Maharashtra via Chhattisgarh. 6. Chandrashekhar Mourya, a Sales Officer of the appellant/insurance company has been examined as a witness. He clearly stated that a temporary permit is required for crossing the State falling between the States for which national permit is issued. He admitted that the temporary permit is not filed in the instant case. He further stated that the insurance company has issued a notice to the owner of the offending vehicle to obtain a temporary permit, but no information was submitted in response thereto. He also admitted that no any copy of the notice was submitted in the instant case. He admitted that the temporary permit is not filed in the instant case. He further stated that the insurance company has issued a notice to the owner of the offending vehicle to obtain a temporary permit, but no information was submitted in response thereto. He also admitted that no any copy of the notice was submitted in the instant case. He further admitted that no any information was obtained by the insurance company from Durg or Raipur RTO regarding permanent permit of the insured/offending vehicle. 7. It is well settled that an insurer taking a plea that the offending vehicle was not having a permit to be plied as a public carrier, the onus to prove the same is upon the insurer itself. In Kamala Mangalal Vayani and others Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and others 2010 ACJ 1441 , it is clearly held that it is for the insurance company to apply to the concerned transport authority for a certificate to produce the same as an evidence which the insurance company has failed. Paragraph 4 of the report is very pertinent and is as under: 4. As noticed above, the owner-cum-driver had remained ex parte. Once it was established that the vehicle was comprehensively insured with the insurer to cover the passenger risk, the burden to prove that it was not liable in spite of such a policy, shifted to the insurer. The claimants are not expected to prove that the vehicle had a valid permit, nor prove that the owner of the vehicle did not commit breach of any of the terms of the policy. It is for the insurer who denies its liability under the policy, to establish that in spite of the Comprehensive Insurance Policy issued by it, it is not liable on account of the requirements of the policy not being fulfilled. In this case, the insurer produced a certified copy of the proceedings of the Registering Authority and Assistant Regional Transport Authority, Bangalore dated 7.7.1990 to show that the application for registration of the vehicle filed by the respondent No. 3, was rejected with an observation that it was open to the applicant to apply for registration in the appropriate class. But that only proved that on 7.7.1990, the vehicle did not have a permit. But that only proved that on 7.7.1990, the vehicle did not have a permit. But that does not prove that the vehicle did not have a permit on 27.7.1990, when the accident occurred. It was open to the insurer to apply to the concerned transport authority for a certificate to show the date on which the permit was granted and that as on the date of the accident, the vehicle did not have a permit, and produce the same as evidence. It failed to do so. The High Court committed an error in expecting the claimants to prove that the vehicle possessed a valid permit. We are of the view that there was no justification for the High Court to interfere with the judgment and awards of the learned Tribunal in the absence of relevant evidence. 8. In view of the aforesaid, there is clear finding recorded by the Claims Tribunal that the insurance company has failed to prove the fact regarding breach of the terms of the policy of insurance. The finding of the Claims Tribunal cannot be faulted with and it cannot be held that the insurance company is not liable to make payment of the compensation. Consequently, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.