JUDGMENT K Natarajan, J. - Both these appeals are filed by the Insurance Company assailing the judgment and award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-V, Small Causes Court, Bengaluru (hereinafter referred to as 'Tribunal') in M.V.C.Nos.1192 & 1193/2010, dated 02.06.2012 fastening the liability on the Insurance Company in the petition filed by the claimants in both the cases under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'M.V. Act') 2. The status of the parties before the Tribunal is retained for the sake of convenience. 3. Heard the arguments of Sri A.M.Venkatesh, learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company and the learned counsel for respondent No.1 in both the cases. The claimants were served but remained absent. Respondent No.2-owner of the vehicle died during the pendency of the appeal. The legal representatives of respondent No.2 were also served but remained absent and not chosen to contest the appeals. 4. The case of the claimants before the Tribunal was that, the claimants are minors aged about 12 and 6 years respectively. That on 29.08.2009 at about 2 p.m., when they were traveling in a mini school bus bearing Registration No.KA-32/5744, the driver of the mini bus drove it in a rash and negligent manner and dashed to the road side tree, due to which, both of them sustained grievous injuries. They were taken to the hospital and treatment was given. The guardian, father of the claimants spent huge amount towards their medical expenditure and due to the injuries, the claimants are suffering from disability. Hence, they have claimed compensation. 5. Pursuant to the notice, respondent No.2-owner of the vehicle remained absent. Hence, he was placed exparte. Whereas, respondent No.1-Insurance Company appeared through its counsel and filed a written objections by denying all the averments made in the claim petition as false. However, the Insurance Company admitted the issuance of the insurance policy and taken the contention that the liability is subject to the terms and conditions of the policy. He further contended that the driver of the vehicle was not having a valid and effective driving licence and also there was no permit issued by the Regional Transport Office (RTO) for running the vehicle as a transport vehicle. Therefore, there is violation of the conditions of the policy. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the claim petitions filed against the Insurance Company. 6. Therefore, there is violation of the conditions of the policy. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the claim petitions filed against the Insurance Company. 6. Based upon the pleadings, the Tribunal framed following common issues: "1.Whether the guardian of minor petitioners proves that on 29.08.2009 at about 2.00 pm, Chikkaballapura Taluk, Ithamakalahalli Village, she met with an accident and sustained injuries was due to the actionable negligence act on the part of the driver of Bus bearing registration No.KA.32.5744 as alleged? 2.Whether the petitioners are entitled to compensation? If so, how much and from whom? 3. What Order?" 7. To substantiate the contentions, the fathers of the minor petitioners have been examined as PWs.1 and 2 and got marked 13 documents. On behalf of the Insurance Company, three witnesses were examined and five documents were marked (though the Tribunal has shown only four documents). After hearing the arguments, the Tribunal answered issue No.1 in both the cases in the affirmative; issue No.2 partly in the affirmative and awarded compensation of Rs.20,000/- in M.V.C.No.1192/2010 and Rs.2,85,000/- in M.V.C.No.1193/2010 by fastening the liability on the Insurance Company. Assailing the fastening of liability as well as the quantum, the Insurance Company has preferred these two appeals. 8. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant- Insurance Company strenuously argued mainly on the point of fastening of the liability contending that the findings of the Tribunal is illegal and against the evidence on record. In spite of issuing of notice by the Insurance Company to the owner of the vehicle for production of driving license of the driver and the permit, the same were not produced and in order to prove violation of the conditions of the permit, the Insurance Company has examined the Office Superintendent of State Transport Authority as RW.2. RW.2 has categorically stated that there is no issuance of any permit for the vehicle in question and in spite of non-production of the permit and the driving licence of the driver, the Tribunal has fastened the liability on the insurer, which is not correct. Driving the vehicle without the licence and plying the transport vehicle without the permit is fundamental infraction of law. Therefore, the liability cannot be fastened on the Insurance Company. However, the learned counsel has not argued much on the quantum of compensation. Hence, prayed for allowing the appeals. 9. Driving the vehicle without the licence and plying the transport vehicle without the permit is fundamental infraction of law. Therefore, the liability cannot be fastened on the Insurance Company. However, the learned counsel has not argued much on the quantum of compensation. Hence, prayed for allowing the appeals. 9. Upon hearing the arguments and on perusal of the records, the point that arises for my consideration is : "Whether the Tribunal has committed error in fastening the liability on the Insurance Company in view of the violation of conditions of the policy, plying the transport vehicle without permit and without valid and effective driving licence by the driver, which calls for interference?" 10. On perusal of the record, it is not in dispute that respondent No.2 was the owner of mini transport vehicle and the claimants, who were students traveled in the mini bus met with the accident that occurred on 29.08.2009 and sustained injuries. The natural guardian of the minors got examined themselves as PWs.1 and 2 and they also produced and marked the FIR, panchanama, wound certificates, IMV report, charge-sheet and medical records. Thereby, the claimants are successful in proving that the accident was caused by the driver of the mini bus due to rash and negligent driving. The Tribunal has considered the evidence of claimants both oral as well as documentary and based upon the medical records, the Tribunal has computed the compensation and has rightly held that the claimants are entitled for compensation of Rs.20,000/- and Rs.2,85,000/- respectively, which does not call for any reduction. 11. However, the Tribunal has given findings on the issue of liability. The Tribunal though held that there is no permit in respect of the vehicle and the owner of the vehicle has not produced any documentary evidence, but it has held that "even assuming that there is some violation of policy condition, but it is not the substantial violation and there is a separate provision under the law to punish a person who has violated and has drove the vehicle without permit" and hence, fastened the liability on the Insurance Company. The same is challenged by the Insurance Company in these appeals. 12. The same is challenged by the Insurance Company in these appeals. 12. Admittedly, the owner of the mini bus though served with notice, but he has not chosen to contest the case and though the Police have filed the charge-sheet against the driver of the mini bus for the offences under Sections 279, 337 and 338 of Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC') and not shown any offence under Section 3 of the M.V. Act, but that does not mean that the driver of the mini bus was holding a valid and effective driving licence. However, as per the evidence of RWs.2 and 3 of the Insurance Company, RW.2 who is the Office Superintendent of the Transport Department has categorically stated that there is no issuance of any permit for the vehicle bearing No.KA-32/5744. Though the learned counsel for the claimants has tried to elicit that the local RTO i.e., ARTO, Devanahalli might have issued the permit as the vehicle has been registered at Chikkaballapura RTO, the Insurance Company got examined RW.3- Afzal Ahmed Khan, who is the Road Transport Officer of the Chikkaballapura, has categorically stated that the offending vehicle has been registered in the Chikkaballapura RTO, but there was no permit obtained by the owner of the vehicle. The learned counsel for the claimants tried to elicit that the permit can be issued by the State Transport Authority and the witness admitted that the State Transport Authority can issue the permit. It is seen from the evidence of RW.2 who is the Office Superintendent of the State Transport Authority has clearly stated that there is no issuance of permit. The evidence of RWs.2 and 3 clearly corroborates with each other that the owner of the offending vehicle has not obtained any permit for plying the transport vehicle. The Tribunal though accepted the contention of violation of policy condition with regard to the permit, but it has stated that the said violation of the policy condition is not substantial violation. In this regard, the learned counsel for the appellant- Insurance Company brought to the notice of this Court the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court regarding violation of policy condition in respect of permit as well as driving licence. 13. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case Amrit Paul Singh & Another vs. Tata AIG General Insurance Co. In this regard, the learned counsel for the appellant- Insurance Company brought to the notice of this Court the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court regarding violation of policy condition in respect of permit as well as driving licence. 13. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case Amrit Paul Singh & Another vs. Tata AIG General Insurance Co. Ltd. & Others in Civil Appeal No.2253/2018 (Arising out of S.L.P. (CIVIL) No.7692/2017) has held that the use of vehicle in a public place without a permit is a fundamental statutory infraction and in the said case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has directed the Insurance Company to pay the award amount and recover the same from the owner of the vehicle. In another judgment in the case of Rani and Others vs. National Insurance Company Limited and others, (2018) 8 SCC 492 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has taken a similar view that when the offending vehicle did not possess a valid permit to operate in the State concerned, the Hon'ble Supreme Court directed the Insurance Company to pay the compensation with liberty to recover the same from the owner of the offending vehicle. A similar view has been taken by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in respect of unauthorized driver or driving the vehicle without valid and effective driving licence. The principle of pay and recover has been ordered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pappu and others vs. Vinod Kumar Lamba and Another, (2018) 3 SCC 208 . 14. In view of the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above said cases, though there is insurance policy issued by the insurer in favour of the owner of the offending vehicle, if there is any gross violation of conditions of the policy in respect of driving licence and permit, the Insurance Company is liable to satisfy the award amount and liberty to recover the same from the owner of the offending vehicle. Therefore, in my considered view, the Tribunal has committed error in holding that plying the vehicle without permit was not substantive violation and the same is liable to be set aside. Therefore, I hold that plying the transport vehicle on the public road without valid permit and allowing the person to drive the vehicle without possessing a valid and effective driving licence are fundamental statutory infractions. Therefore, I hold that plying the transport vehicle on the public road without valid permit and allowing the person to drive the vehicle without possessing a valid and effective driving licence are fundamental statutory infractions. Therefore, the owner of the vehicle has violated the conditions of the insurance policy. Hence, no liability shall be fastened on the Insurance Company. In the instant case on hand, though the legal heirs of respondent No.2-owner of the vehicle were served with summons, but not chosen to contest the matter. The owner of the vehicle also placed ex-parte before the Tribunal. Hence, there shall not be any liability on the Insurance Company and in view of the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Amrit Paul Singh and Rani and Others stated supra, the appellant-Insurance Company is liable to satisfy the award and liberty to recover the same from the owner of the vehicle. Accordingly, I answer the point in favour of the appellant Insurance Company as against the respondent owner of the vehicle. 15. In view of my findings above, both the appeals filed by the Insurance Company are allowed-in-part. The award passed in favour of respondent No.1- claimants on the point of quantum has been confirmed. However, fastening the liability on the Insurance Company is set aside and modified and it is directed the appellant- Insurance Company to satisfy the award at first instance, with liberty to recover the same from the owner of the offending vehicle. Office to send back the records along with the copy of the judgment.