ORDER 1. This Misc. Appeal under section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has been filed against the award dated 6.5.2015 passed by Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Pichhore, Distt. Shivpuri in Claim Case No. 6/14 by which the Insurance Company has been exonerated. 2. The necessary facts for the disposal of the present appeal in short are that on 27.11.2011, at about 6:30 p.m., the deceased Horil was going on a motorcycle and one Kalyan Lodhi was the pillion rider, whereas another motorcycle was being driven by Ramkumar Lodhi with pillion rider Khuman. When the motorcycle, which was being driven by the deceased Horil, reached near the place of accident, the driver of the offending bus bearing registration No. MP33-P-0145, by driving the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner, dashed the deceased as a result of which the deceased Horil expired. 3. The claims Tribunal by impugned award dated 6.2.2015 has awarded Rs. 5,12,000/- with 7% interest per annum. However, it has been held that since, the offending bus was being driven without any valid permit, therefore, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation, because of violation of insurance policy. 4. Challenging the impugned Award passed by the Claims Tribunal, it is mentioned in the memo of appeal, that the Claims Tribunal has wrongly held that the offending bus was being plied without valid permit. 5. Considered the evidence led by the appellants, as well as the grounds raised in the memo of appeal. 6. The Claims Tribunal in para 11 of the award, has held that the permit, Ex.D-12 was of another bus and was not of the offending bus. Thus, it is held that the findings given by the Claims Tribunal do not require any interference. 7. The Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited v. Challa Upendra Rao, reported in (2004) 8 SCC 517 has held as under : ''12. The High Court was of the view that since there was no permit, the question of violation of any condition thereof does not arise. The view is clearly fallacious. A person without permit to ply a vehicle cannot be placed on a better pedestal vis-à-vis one who has a permit, but has violated any condition thereof. Plying of a vehicle without a permit is an infraction. The view is clearly fallacious. A person without permit to ply a vehicle cannot be placed on a better pedestal vis-à-vis one who has a permit, but has violated any condition thereof. Plying of a vehicle without a permit is an infraction. Therefore, in terms of section 149(2) defence is available to the insurer on that aspect. The acceptability of the stand is a matter of adjudication. The question of policy being operative had no relevance for the issue regarding liability of the insurer. The High Court was, therefore, not justified in holding the insurer liable.'' 8. The Supreme Court in the case of Amrit Paul Singh v. TATA AIG General Insurance Co. Ltd. reported in (2018)7 SCC 558 has held that in case, if the transport vehicle was being plied without permit, then the Insurance Company would not be liable. 9. Accordingly, the award dated is hereby affirmed. 10. The appeal fails and is hereby Dismissed. ....................