ORDER : H.C. Mishra, J. Heard learned counsel for the appellant Insurance Company, learned counsel for the claimants respondents Nos. 1 to 7, and learned counsel for the respondent No. 8, the owner of the offending truck. 2. This appeal is directed against the impugned Award dated 3.10.2016, passed by the MACT, Dhanbad, in Title (M.V.) Claim case No. 46 of 2014, arising out of a case of death due to accident by the offending truck, wherein the claimants respondents have been awarded the compensation of Rs. 9,56,000/- including the compensation already received under Section 148 of the M.V. Act, amounting to Rs. 50,000/-. Thus the remaining amount of compensation being Rs. 9,06,000/- was directed to be paid by the defendant No.2 (appellant herein), to the claimants along with the interest @ 6% per annum, and the amount to be paid to the different claimants was also apportioned by the MACT. 3. The only challenge to the impugned Award by the learned counsel for the appellant Insurance Company, is that the truck in question on the date of accident was not having the valid permit and accordingly, it is submitted by learned counsel that the liability of making the payment of compensation should have been imposed upon to the owner of the truck and not upon the Insurance Company. However, It is an admitted fact that on the date of accident, the truck was insured with the appellant Insurance Company. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant has drawn attention of this Court towards Section 66 of the Motor Vehicles Act, under which, even the vehicles for transportation of goods are required to have permit, granted or countersigned by the Regional or State Transport Authority, whether or not the goods are being transported. Learned counsel has drawn the attention of the Court towards issue No. 6 framed by the MACT, which reads - "Whether the permit of the vehicle was valid at that time". The owner of the truck had taken plea that the truck was having some defects in the engine, and the truck was kept in garage, but on the date of accident, it was being taken by the driver to the Transport office, when the accident had taken place, resulting in the death of the victim. The owner of the truck had taken plea that the truck was having some defects in the engine, and the truck was kept in garage, but on the date of accident, it was being taken by the driver to the Transport office, when the accident had taken place, resulting in the death of the victim. According to the claim of the owner of the truck, the permit of the vehicle was not required for settlement of the claim. The Tribunal has given the finding that the plea taken by the owner of the truck was completely an afterthought and it had been taken only with a view to save herself from the liability of permit of the offending vehicle and therefore, the Tribunal has taken adverse inference against the owner of the truck, for not producing the required permit. However, the compensation has been awarded and the appellant Insurance Company has been saddled with the liability to make the payment of compensation to the claimants. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that once adverse inference was drawn against the owner of the truck, the liability of payment of compensation ought to have been fixed upon the owner of the truck and not upon the insurance company. 5. Learned counsel for the claimants respondents and learned counsel for the owner of the truck have opposed the prayer. Learned counsel for the claimants respondents has placed reliance upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Manuara Khatun and Ors. v. Rajesh Kumar Singh and Ors., reported in (2017) 4 SCC 796 , wherein, the law has been laid down as follows:- "13. The only question, which arises for consideration in these appeals, is whether the appellants are entitled for an order against the insurer of the offending vehicle i.e. (Respondent 3) to pay the awarded sum to the appellants and then to recover the said amount from the insured (owner of the offending vehicle Tata Sumo) Respondent 1 in the same proceedings. 14. The aforesaid question, in our opinion, remains no more res integra. As we notice, it was the subject matter of several decisions of this Court rendered by three Judge Bench and two Judge Bench in the past viz. National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Baljit Kaur, National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Challa Upendra Rao, National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Kaushalaya Devi, National Insurance Co. As we notice, it was the subject matter of several decisions of this Court rendered by three Judge Bench and two Judge Bench in the past viz. National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Baljit Kaur, National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Challa Upendra Rao, National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Kaushalaya Devi, National Insurance Co. v. Roshan Lal and National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Parvathneni. 15. This question also fell for consideration recently in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Saju P. Paul wherein this Court took note of entire previous case law on the subject mentioned above and examined the question in the context of Section 147 of the Act. While allowing the appeal filed by the insurance company by reversing the judgment of the High Court, it was held on facts that since the victim was travelling in offending vehicle as "gratuitous passenger" and hence, the insurance company cannot be held liable to suffer the liability arising out of accident on the strength of the insurance policy. However, this Court keeping in view the benevolent object of the Act and other relevant factors arising in the case, issued the directions against the insurance company to pay the awarded sum to the claimants and then to re3 cover the said sum from the insured in the same proceedings by applying the principle of " pay and recover " . ********* 21. In view of the foregoing discussion, we are of the view that the direction to United India Insurance Co. Ltd. (Respondent 3) - they being the insurer of the offending vehicle which was found involved in causing accident due to negligence of its driver needs to be issued directing them (United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Respondent 3) to first pay the awarded sum to the appellants (claimants) and then to recover the paid awarded sum from the owner of the offending vehicle (Tata Sumo) Respondent 1 in execution proceedings arising in this very case as per the law laid down in para 26 of Saju P. Paul case quoted supra." (emphasis supplied). Placing reliance on the aforesaid decision, learned counsel for the claimants respondents submitted that the appellant Insurance Company be directed to make the payment of compensation awarded to the claimants and they may be given the liberty to recover the amount from the owner of the vehicle. 6. Placing reliance on the aforesaid decision, learned counsel for the claimants respondents submitted that the appellant Insurance Company be directed to make the payment of compensation awarded to the claimants and they may be given the liberty to recover the amount from the owner of the vehicle. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent owner of the truck has submitted that in the facts of the case, the permit was not required to be proved in the case and the liability has been rightly affixed on the Insurance Company, as on the date of accident the truck was insured with the appellant Insurance Company. 7. Having heard learned counsels for the parties, I am of the considered view that the facts of the case is fully covered by the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Manuara Khatun's case (supra). Since the vehicle was insured with the appellant Insurance Company on the date of accident, the responsibility of making the payment of compensation has rightly been fixed upon the Insurance Company. The appellant Insurance Company is accordingly, directed to make the payment of remaining amount of compensation, awarded to the claimants without any further delay. The appellant Insurance Company shall be free to take steps in accordance with law for recovery of the amount from the owner of the truck, if they so desire, in view of the principle 'pay and recover' as per the law laid down in the decision cited above. 8. Pursuant to the order dated 21.7.2017 passed in I.A. No. 5892 of 2017, the appellant Insurance Company has already deposited 50% of the awarded compensation in the Court below. The claimants shall be free to withdraw the deposited amount from the Court below. The claimants shall also be entitled to withdraw the statutory amount deposited at the time of filing of the appeal. 9. This appeal is accordingly, disposed of, with the directions as above.