JUDGMENT : ARUN BHANSALI, J. This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 12/3/2018 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Pali (‘the Tribunal’), whereby, the Tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs. 19,22,264/- along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of application i.e. 7/5/2015. Further, though the Insurance Company has been exonerated from the liability to pay compensation on account of violation of policy conditions, a direction to pay and recover has been given by the Tribunal. 2. The application for compensation was filed by the claimants inter alia with the averments that on 27/11/2014 one Roop Singh and Shravan Kumar were standing on the road side after parking their motorcycle, when the truck tanker No. RJ-22-GA-4192, which was being driven rashly and negligently by its driver, Bheema Ram, came and struck Roop Singh and one Parbat Singh, who had joined them, resulting in Roop Singh receiving severe injuries to which he succumbed on 17/1/2015. It was claimed that deceased was aged 57 years and was engaged in the business of brokerage pertaining to sale/purchase of properties and used to earn Rs. 20,000/- per month. Based on the said averments, compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,08,80,000/- was claimed. 3. The application was contested by the non-claimant, wherein, the averments made in the application were, denied. It was contended that the accident occurred on account of negligence of the deceased. 4. The Insurance Company filed its reply and indicated that the accident did not occur from the insured vehicle. The driver was not in possession of valid and effective driving licence and that the conditions of the policy have been violated. 5. The Tribunal framed four issues. On behalf of the claimants, two witnesses were examined and 342 documents were exhibited, on behalf of non-claimant no evidence was produced and on behalf of Insurance Company, two witnesses were examined. After hearing the parties, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of the driver of the truck tanker, which resulted in fatal injuries to Roop Singh. After hearing the parties, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of the driver of the truck tanker, which resulted in fatal injuries to Roop Singh. While considering the issue pertaining to defence raised by the appellant Insurance Company, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that for lack of permit there was violation of policy condition and, therefore, the Insurance Company was not liable for making payment, however, it also came to the conclusion that the Insurance Company would first pay the compensation and then recover the same from the owner of the vehicle. Thereafter, the Tribunal after coming to the conclusion that the deceased was aged 60 years assessed his income at Rs. 4,000/- per month and applying the principles laid down in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi; AIR 2017 SC 5157 ; 2017 (4) RLW 3248 (SC) awarded Rs. 3,86,764/- as compensation and further awarded a sum of Rs. 15,35,500/- towards medical expenses and in all awarded a sum of Rs. 19,22,264/- along with interest, as noticed hereinbefore. 6. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant Insurance Company that the Tribunal committed error in ordering for pay and recover in the present case. It was submitted that once it was found based on the evidence available on record that owner was not in possession of any permit qua the insured vehicle, there was no reason for the Tribunal to order ‘pay and recover’ in the circumstances of the case. 7. Strong reliance was placed on the judgment in Amrit Paul Singh v. TATA AIG General Insurance Co. Ltd.; 2018 (2) ACC 638 (SC); 2018 (3) RLW 2561 (SC). 8. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant and have perused the material available on record. 9. 7. Strong reliance was placed on the judgment in Amrit Paul Singh v. TATA AIG General Insurance Co. Ltd.; 2018 (2) ACC 638 (SC); 2018 (3) RLW 2561 (SC). 8. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant and have perused the material available on record. 9. The Tribunal while passing the award impugned came to a definite conclusion that owner was not in possession of valid permit to operate the vehicle, based on the evidence of NAW-1, Pankaj Mehta, an employee of R.T.O., Pali, wherein, he specifically indicated that on the date of accident the permit of the vehicle was not valid, Fitness Certificate was valid from 3.1.2013 to 2.1.2014 and on the date of accident the Fitness Certificate was not valid, the vehicle was registered as an open body truck, whereas, the same was being used as a tanker. Though, the issue pertaining to ‘pay and recover’ and whether the same, in the circumstances of the case, can be directed, has not been discussed, however, the Tribunal as a matter of course passed the said order. 10. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Amrit Paul Singh (supra) after discussing the entire issue pertaining to the liability of the Insurance Company in case where the owner was not possessing a valid permit, laid down as under: “In the case at hand, it is clearly demonstrable from the materials brought on record that the vehicle at the time of the accident did not have a permit. The appellants had taken the stand that the vehicle was not involved in the accident. That apart, they had not stated whether the vehicle had temporary permit or any other kind of permit. The exceptions that have been carved out under Section 66 of the Act, needless to emphasise, are to be pleaded and proved. The exceptions cannot be taken aid of in the course of an argument to seek absolution from liability. Use of a vehicle in a public place without a permit is a fundamental statutory infraction. We are disposed to think so in view of the series of exceptions carved out in Section 66. The said situations cannot be equated with absence of licence or a fake licence or a licence for different kind of vehicle, or, for that matter, violation of a condition of carrying more number of passengers. We are disposed to think so in view of the series of exceptions carved out in Section 66. The said situations cannot be equated with absence of licence or a fake licence or a licence for different kind of vehicle, or, for that matter, violation of a condition of carrying more number of passengers. Therefore, the principles laid down in Swaran Singh (supra) and Lakhmi Chand (supra) in that regard would not be applicable to the case at hand. That apart, the insurer had taken the plea that the vehicle in question had no permit. It does not require the wisdom of the “Tripitaka”, that the existence of a permit of any nature is a matter of documentary evidence. Nothing has been brought on record by the insured to prove that he had a permit of the vehicle. In such a situation, the onus cannot be cast on the insurer. Therefore, the tribunal as well as the High Court had directed the insurer was required to pay the compensation amount to the claimants with interest with the stipulation that the insurer shall be entitled to recover the same from the owner and the driver. The said directions are in consonance with the principles stated in Swaran Singh (supra) and other cases pertaining to pay and recover principle.” A perusal of the above conclusion would reveal that it was laid down that use of vehicle in a public place without a permit is a fundamental statutory infraction and such a situation cannot be equated with the absence of licence or a fake licence or a licence for a different kind of vehicle or violation of a condition of carrying more number of passengers and, therefore, the principles laid down in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swaran Singh; (2004) 3 SCC 297 ; RLW 2004 (2) SC 161 would have no application. It was further held that direction given by the Tribunal and the High Court for the insurer to pay the compensation with entitlement to recover the same from the owner and the driver of the vehicle also was in consonance with the principles stated in Swaran Singh. 11. It was further held that direction given by the Tribunal and the High Court for the insurer to pay the compensation with entitlement to recover the same from the owner and the driver of the vehicle also was in consonance with the principles stated in Swaran Singh. 11. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently submitted that it has been specifically laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court that the principles laid down in the case of Swaran Singh (supra) would not apply, which necessarily means that the direction pertaining to ‘pay and recover’ also cannot be made in a case where the owner is not in possession of a valid permit and insofar as observations made by the Court pertaining to pay and recover are concerned, they were made in view of the fact that the Tribunal and High Court had given the said direction. As the issue of ‘pay and recover’ as such was not before the Hon'ble Supreme Court inasmuch as the appellant was the owner of the vehicle, who was questioning the direction of pay and recover, the said observations made by Hon'ble Supreme Court cannot mean that the Court has laid down that the direction to pay and recover can be given in a case where the owner is not in possession of a valid permit. 12. The submission made by learned counsel for the appellant has been noticed to be rejected, inasmuch as bare reading of the directions given by Hon'ble Supreme Court, as quoted hereinbefore, reveal that the Court was live to the two principles laid down in the case of Swaran Singh (supra), wherein, the aspect as to whether the Insurance Company can be held liable for certain infractions pertaining to policy conditions and as to whether the direction to pay and recover could be given, were independently considered and decided. 13. While taking note of the directions as given by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Swaran Singh (supra) it has been laid down that so far as the infraction was concerned, the said infraction would not fall within the exception/exclusion as laid down in the case of Swaran Singh (supra). 13. While taking note of the directions as given by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Swaran Singh (supra) it has been laid down that so far as the infraction was concerned, the said infraction would not fall within the exception/exclusion as laid down in the case of Swaran Singh (supra). However, when the direction given by the Tribunal and the High Court pertaining to pay and recover was considered, it was held that the said direction is in consonance with the principles laid down in the case of Swaran Singh and other cases pertaining to pay and recover principle. 14. Merely because the appellant before the Hon'ble Supreme Court was owner of the vehicle, who was questioning his liability/direction to pay and recover, and that the Insurance Company was not an appellant before the Hon'ble Supreme Court cannot dilute the principle/interpretation as laid down/made by Hon'ble Supreme Court and, therefore, the direction to pay and recover granted by the Tribunal does not call for any interference. 15. No other submission was made by learned counsel for the appellant. 16. In view of the above discussion, there is no substance in the appeal and the same is, therefore, dismissed.