PRAKASH CHANDRA JAISWAL, J.:–As the aforesaid two appeals have cropped up from the common judgment, hence these two appeals are being disposed of by the common order. 2. These miscellaneous appeals have been filed against the judgment dated 12.03.2013 and award dated 23.03.2013 passed by the Adhoc Additional District Judge-I,-cum-Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal, Muzaffarpur in Claim Case No. 169 of 2007 and 172 of 2007, whereby learned Tribunal awarded the amount of compensation to the tune of Rs. 12,12,400/- regarding death of Raj Kumar Pandey and to the tune of Rs. 2,80,000/- regarding the death of Shivam Pandey and directed the appellant –United India Insurance Company Limited to pay the aforesaid amount of compensations along with the interest of 7% per annum from the date of filing of claim case till its realization to the claimants. 3. Factual matrix of the case is that Pratima Pandey, Mangru Pandey and Kalawati Devi have filed Claim Case No. 169 of 2007 and Pratima Pandey has filed Claim Case No. 172 of 2007 under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act for awarding compensation due to the death of Raj Kumar Pandey and Shivam Pandey respectively in the motor vehicle accident with the case in succinct that on 12.05.2017, Raj Kumar Pandey and his Son Shivam Pandey were traveling by bus bearing Registration No. BR 05P-0556 hailing to Bihar State Road Transport Corporation from Motihari to Patna. When the Bus arrived at Ganga Setu Bridge, Patna, the driver of the said vehicle lost his control over the bus due to rash and negligent driving of the same resultantly braking the railing of the bridge, the bus plunged into the Ganga River in which seven persons including the aforesaid two persons lost their lives and 10 to 15 persons sustained injury. Regarding the said accident, Vaishali (Sadar) P.S. Case No. 144 of 2007 was lodged against the driver of the offending vehicle under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304A of the Indian Penal Code. The Deceased Raj Kumar Pandey was aged about 28 years and his son Shivam Kuamr Pandey was aged about 5 years. Raj Kumar Pandey was security personnel in a private company and he used to get salary of Rs. 8350/- per month. 4. Both the owner and insurer of the offending vehicle put their appearance in the said case and filed written statement. Raj Kumar Pandey was security personnel in a private company and he used to get salary of Rs. 8350/- per month. 4. Both the owner and insurer of the offending vehicle put their appearance in the said case and filed written statement. The claimants adduced ocular and documentary evidence in buttress of their case and the Insurance Company also adduced ocular as well as documentary evidence in buttress of its case. 5. After hearing the parties and perusing the record, learned Tribunal passed the impugned judgment and award as mentioned in the earlier paragraph. 6. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment and award, the Opposite Party No.2-United India Insurance Company Limited has preferred the aforesaid two appeals. 7. The appellant has assailed the impugned judgment and award only on the ground that the owner of the offending vehicle was not possessing any valid road permit and the vehicle was being plied without valid road permit and hence, there was violation of terms and conditions of the policy. So, the appellant is not liable to pay the compensation indemnifying the owner of the vehicle. Learned counsel for the appellant has also submitted that though the learned Tribunal has also found that the offending vehicle was being plied without permit but directed the appellant to pay the amount of compensation to the claimants without giving liberty to the appellant to recover the awarded amount and interest thereon from its owner after its payment to the claimants. 8. Learned counsels for the respondents put their appearance in the case. Learned counsel for the respondent no.4-Bihar State Road Transport Corporation has frankly conceded that the offending vehicle was being plied without permit at the relevant time of accident. 9. In the case under hand, surveyor of the appellant, namely, Rajesh Kumar Mishra was examined and he has deposed that the offending vehicle was being plied without any permit. The owner of the vehicle did not file any permit of offending vehicle in the court below and considering the evidence and the facts of the case, learned lower court has also found that the offending vehicle was being plied without permit at the relevant time of accident. The said finding has not been assailed by the respondents. 10. The owner of the vehicle did not file any permit of offending vehicle in the court below and considering the evidence and the facts of the case, learned lower court has also found that the offending vehicle was being plied without permit at the relevant time of accident. The said finding has not been assailed by the respondents. 10. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I find and hold that the offending vehicle was being plied without permit in utter violation of the terms and conditions of the policy. So, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay any compensation to the claimants indemnifying the owner of the vehicle. But as the Motor Vehicle Act happens to be beneficial legislation and the claimants happen to be the third party to the contract of insurance policy entered into by the Insurance Company and owner of the offending vehicle, hence to subserve the ends of justice, the appellant – United India Insurance Company Limited is directed to pay the aforesaid awarded amount of compensation and interest thereon to the claimants and it may recover the same from the owner of the vehicle. 11. Accordingly, the aforesaid judgment and award passed by the learned lower court is modified and these two appeals are disposed of. Let the statutory amount deposited by the appellant in the aforesaid two appeals be sent to the learned Tribunal for adjustment towards the payment.