JUDGMENT : Servesh Kumar Gupta, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties. This appeal assails the judgment and order dated 31.05.2016 rendered by the Tribunal for the reason that while awarding compensation and fastening the liability to satisfy such award on the Oriental Insurance Company, the recovery rights were conferred against the appellant Uttarakhand Road Transport Corporation. The premise for conferring such rights is that Roadways Bus No. UK 07 PA-1705 was being plied without a valid route permit. 2. Such bus was of the Dehradun Depot and left Dehradun for Haldwani or at nearby place at Uttarakhand. On 15.03.2014, at around 3:30 p.m., when the bus was passing through Afzalgarh (in the territory of U.P.) to its next destination Jaspur (in the territory of Uttarakhand), an accident was caused making the claimant Sonu injured. It is true that this Roadways Bus did not have any permit to be plied in the area of Uttar Pradesh, but it is pertinent to mention that while travelling from Haridwar to Jaspur, it is not possible for any vehicle to cross a certain area/distance of the road without entering into the U.P. Border. 3. Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of 'Bajaj Alianz General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Mamta Devi & Others' 2015 (4) T.A.C. 367 (All.) has held that route whereon the bus was being plied if notified then the operation of the Government bus was not illegal for want of any valid permit. 4. In view of this court as well, the whole territory of Uttarakhand is a notified area for plying the state owned corporation buses, notwithstanding such bus is under the ownership of even other person but have been hired by the corporation for being plied. The law has been made more clear by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of U.P. State Road Transport Corporation v. Kulsum & others (2011) 8 SCC 142 wherein it was held: “14. The aforesaid two issues are no longer res integra. The law has been made more clear by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of U.P. State Road Transport Corporation v. Kulsum & others (2011) 8 SCC 142 wherein it was held: “14. The aforesaid two issues are no longer res integra. The Hon'ble Apex court in the case of U.P. State Road Transport Corporation v. Kulsum & Others, (2011) 8 SCC 142 : 2011 (4) T.A.C. 15 has held that where the vehicle is given on hire by the owner of the vehicle together with its existence and running insurance policy in view of the terms and conditions of the agreement, the Insurance Company cannot escape from its liability to pay compensation. Though for all practical purposes for the relevant period, the hirer becomes the owner of the vehicle for the original owner, it will be deemed that the vehicle is transferred along with the insurance policy in existence to the hirer and thus the Insurance Company would not be escaped from its liability to pay amount of compensation. It has further been observed that the liability to pay compensation is based on statutory provision and the liability of the owner to have compulsory insurance is only in regard to the third party and not to the property. Once the vehicle is insured the owner as well as any person can use the vehicle with the consent of the owner. Section 146 of the Motor Vehicles Act does not provide that any person who use the vehicle independently a separate insurance policy should be taken.” 5. Further, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of U.P. State Road Transport Corporation v. Regional Transport Authority MR 1998 SC 3110 has held: 15. With regard to the issue of necessary permit, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of U.P. State Road Transport Corporation v. Regional Transport Authority, AIR 1998 S.C. 3110 , has held that renewal of permits of Corporation is not necessary during the subsistence of scheme in respect of notified routes/areas. With regard to the issue of necessary permit, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of U.P. State Road Transport Corporation v. Regional Transport Authority, AIR 1998 S.C. 3110 , has held that renewal of permits of Corporation is not necessary during the subsistence of scheme in respect of notified routes/areas. In paragraph 9 it has been held as under: “A combined reading of Sections 68-B, 68-F (1-E) and Rule 10 (supra) shows that in so far as notified routes are concerned, for which the Corporation has an exclusive right to ply their vehicles under the scheme framed under the Act, the duration of the permit obtained by the Corporation for plying those vehicles is conterminous with the life of the scheme. Sub-clause (4) of Rule says, “the permit issued as aforesaid shall remain valid till the scheme in force.” 6. An identical matter was also before the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in MACP No. 51/2013 'Anuj & Others v. Vinod Kumar Sharma & Others' where the accident of the Uttarakhand Transport Corporation bus occurred with a motorcyclist in Gaziabad, then in claim petition presented, it was held that if the valid permit had been issued in favour of the corporation bus in respect of the notified areas and notified routes then the insurer cannot be exonerated from owing the liability to satisfy the award. 7. In view of what has been set forth above, I think there is merit in this appeal. The impugned judgment and order is hereby modified to the extent of vanquishing the recovery rights of the Insurance Company against the appellant. 8. Appeal stands allowed in above terms. Impugned judgment and order is modified to the extent indicated above. 9. Let the statutory compulsory deposit, along with the interest accrued on it, be returned to the appellant.