JUDGMENT : R. Devdas, J. The Insurer is in appeal before this Court assailing the judgment and award passed by the II Additional Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.) Member, MACTVI, Mangalore, Dakshina Kannada in MVC No.169/2006. 2. The brief facts of the case are as follows: The respondent No.1 was an occupant of an Auto rickshaw which met with an accident and he suffered injuries in the said accident. The Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.2,25,560/- along with interest at 6% per annum. Though the Tribunal came to a conclusion that there was violation of permit conditions, and the Insurer is not contractually liable to pay the compensation, yet proceeds to direct the Insurer to pay the compensation and recover the same from the owner. 3. The short question which arises for consideration is; “Whether the Tribunal was justified in directing the insurer to pay the compensation on behalf of the owner and thereafter recover the same from the owner?” 4. This question need not detain this Court for long, since a similar question was dealt with by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Rani and others vs. National Insurance Company Limited and others, which was recently decided on 31.7.2018. 5. The principal issue that was raised before the Hon’ble Apex Court in Rani’s case (supra) was whether the Tribunal could have fasten the liability on the Insurer as the offending vehicle did not possess a valid permit to operate in the State of Karnataka in view of the Section 149(2)(a)(i)(a) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, while the permit was limited to the State of Maharashtra. It was contended on behalf of the Insurance Company that by virtue of the statutory provisions, the Insurance Company could not be made liable to pay compensation as the offending vehicle did not have a valid permit to operate in the State of Karnataka. It was also contended that no direction could be issued against the Insurance Company to pay and recover, as it would be difficult for the Insurance Company to trace the owner of the offending vehicle. It was also contended that no direction could be issued against the Insurance Company to pay and recover, as it would be difficult for the Insurance Company to trace the owner of the offending vehicle. Inspite of the contentions raised by the Insurance Company, the Hon’ble Apex Court, having held that the Insurance Company was not liable to pay compensation, yet directed the Insurance Company to pay compensation amount awarded to the claimant and reserved liberty to the Insurance Company to recover the same from the owner of the offending vehicle. 6. That being the position, this Court is of the opinion that the directions given by the Tribunal to the appellant/Insurance Company to pay the amount awarded to the claimant and thereafter recover the same from the owner of the offending vehicle cannot be faulted. Therefore, the appeal stands dismissed. The amount deposited by the appellant/Insurance Company stands transmitted to the Tribunal forthwith.