JUDGMENT : 1. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment/ award dated 21.03.2012 passed by the Presiding Officer, Motor Vehicle Accident Claim Tribunal, Ranchi in connection with Compensation Case No.306 of 2003 whereby the appellant/ New India Assurance Co. Ltd was directed to pay compensation of Rs.2,37,500/- along with interest @6% per annum payable with effect from 19.03.2009. 2. The claimants' case is that on 18.06.2013 the bus bearing registration No.JH 13A-0175, carrying the passengers reached near village Singsari under Angara Police Station and dashed the motorcycle coming from the opposite direction and subsequently dashed against the tree standing on the side of the road. The bus was extensively damaged and some passengers of the bus sustained injuries and some died due to the injuries sustained on account of the accident. It is alleged that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the bus. In the said accident the motorcycle rider namely Md. Shamshad @ Babloo succumbed to the injuries in course of treatment at RIIMS. 3. Amna Khaton the mother of deceased Md. Shamshad filed Compensation Case No.306 of 2003 claiming compensation on account of death of her son Md. Shamshad @ Bablu. 4. The appellant/insurance company has challenged the award. On notice by the Tribunal the owner and insurance company/appellant appeared and contested the claim denying their liabilities respectively. 5. The contention of the owner/insured was that the bus was validly insured with the insurance company and the driver had effective and valid driving licence and the bus was plying with a valid permit on the said route. 6. The appellant/insurance company contended that the bus was not having a valid permit to ply on the route where the accident has taken place. It is the case of the insurance company that according to the F.I.R. the accident has taken place between Angara to Ranchi and the bus was coming from Jonha which does not fall within the route permit from Ranchi to Kolkata via Tata. It is argued that the timing of the bus was mentioned in the permit and at the time of the accident the bus was not on the authorised route as per the permit. That since there has been violation of the terms of the permit, the insurance company is not liable to pay the compensation. It is argued that the timing of the bus was mentioned in the permit and at the time of the accident the bus was not on the authorised route as per the permit. That since there has been violation of the terms of the permit, the insurance company is not liable to pay the compensation. DW-1 Deepak Kumar Lal, an Investigator appointed by the Insurer, has stated that the vehicle was granted route permit from Ranchi to Kolkata via Tata and the same was to be plied once in a day. That at the time of accident the bus was carrying 8090 persons which was beyond the seating capacity. He produced the photo copy of the permit of bus No. JH 13A – 0175 which has been marked as Exhibit-Y. DW-2 was also deputed to investigate the permit No.PS TS -05/ 2001 issued by the Transport Authority, Jharkhand. The permit was from Ranchi to Kolkata via Tata. 7. In reply to the contention of the appellant, the owner of the bus has contended that as per the gazette notification there is also one route which goes to Tata via Silli and as such Angara falls within the said route and permit No.PS TS 05/2001 was granted for plying on the route from Ranchi to Kolkata via Tata. It is contended that no cogent evidence has been adduced by the appellant/insurer to substantiate the plea that there was violation of the terms of the permit. 8. In course of hearing learning counsel of the respondent/owner has produced the documents pertaining to the payment made by the insurance company in respect of own damages claim to the owner of bus No.JH 13A-0175. This has not been controverted by the Insurer/appellant. 9. It is apparent that for own damage case Complaint Case No.373 of 2003 was filed before the learned District Forum, Ranchi by the respondent/owner and the learned District Forum, on appreciation of the documentary and material evidence held that there is no violation of the terms and conditions of the policy or the permit and directed the insurance company/opposite party to make payment towards own damage claim to the claimant/owner of the vehicle. The said judgment was challenged in Appeal No.140 of 2005 by the insurance company before the State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, Jharkhand which dismissed the appeal by order dated 17.10.2005. The said judgment was challenged in Appeal No.140 of 2005 by the insurance company before the State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, Jharkhand which dismissed the appeal by order dated 17.10.2005. Thereafter the insurance company preferred revision before the National Commission which was also dismissed by order dated 03.08.2015. Admittedly the plea that there was violation of the terms and conditions of the policy was not found to be tenable and the insurance company deposited the own damage claimed amount before the District Forum. 10. Learned counsel for the appellant/insurance company submitted that in the case before the Consumer Forum the insurance company denied the claim on the ground interalia that bus was overloaded with 8090 passengers in violation of policy but the ground of violation of terms permit was not specifically emphasised thus the Consumer Forum had no occasion to examine the question regarding the validity of permit pertaining to the bus and the issue of violation of permit condition was not considered nor any adjudication has been made on this question. Accordingly, the appellant/insurance company is challenging its liability on the ground of the violation of the conditions of the permit. 11. The above argument propounded by the learned counsel for the appellant/insurance company is rather frivolous and misplaced because the court below has framed this issue being issue No.5 with regard to the violation of the terms and conditions of the policy and permit and has rightly held that insurance company has not been able to adduce any document or cogent evidence to substantiate the plea that there was violation of the terms of the policy or conditions of the permit. This aspect was also dealt incidentally by the District Consumer Forum as would be evident from the judgment. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, findings of the Tribunal is affirmed that there was no violation of the terms of the permit. 12. On perusal and examination of the documents brought on record by the respondent/owner it is admitted that the insurance company has paid the own damage claim to the owner of the bus. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, findings of the Tribunal is affirmed that there was no violation of the terms of the permit. 12. On perusal and examination of the documents brought on record by the respondent/owner it is admitted that the insurance company has paid the own damage claim to the owner of the bus. In the considered opinion of the court when the insurance company has paid the own damage claim of the vehicle to the insured/owner and in absence of any finding regarding violation of condition of permit the denial of liability on the ground of violation of condition of permit or on the ground of violation of condition of policy pales into insignificance. The insurance company has not challenged the order directing them to deposit the amount for own damage claim and in fact has made the payment, therefore, the appellant/insurance company cannot deny its statutory liability and contractual obligations to pay the compensation to the third party. The respondents/claimants have stated that on account of inter se dispute between the insurance company and the owner, they have been deprived of the compensation amount for years altogether and meager amount of compensation has been awarded by the tribunal. It is hereby directed that the appellant/New India Assurance Co. Ltd. shall pay the awarded compensation in the terms of award less the amount, if any, paid under Section 140 of the M.V. Act. Registry is directed to refund the deposited statutory amount to the appellant/insurance company. In the result, the appeal being devoid of merit stands dismissed.