JUDGMENT : KAUSHAL JAYENDRA THAKER, J. 1. Heard Sri. Sanjeev Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri. Brijesh Chandra Naik, learned counsel for the respondent. Sri. Sanjay Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the respondent, has absented himself even in the third round. 2. This appeal, at the behest of U.P.S.R.T.C. challenges the judgment and award dated 10.08.2017 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge, Court No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Tribunal’) in MACP No. 552 of 2013. 3. The only grievance raised is that the vehicle which was placed at their command was insured. The U.P.S.R.T.C. does not challenge the quantum, involvement of the vehicle and the judgment on merits. 4. Facts are not necessary. However, the skeletal facts goes to show that the appellant entered into an agreement with the owner of the bus. The bus was placed at the service of the appellant which met with an accident. The bus was insured with New India Assurance Co. Ltd. The Tribunal exonerated the Insurance Company and mulcted the liability on the present appellant. This has aggrieved the appellant. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that after holding issue number 2 and 3 in the favour of the appellant namely driver had proper driving license, the Tribunal has exonerated the Insurance Company. Learned counsel for the appellant has further submitted that the vehicle was insured on the date of accident and that the said issue recently came before the Apex Court in U.P. State Road Transport Corporation vs. Rajendri Devi and Others, 2020 (3) TAC 66 SC, which also support his argument. 6. While going through the award, it is clear that issue numbers 2 and 3 are in favour of appellant despite that why the Tribunal did not follow the judgment of this Court in First Appeal From Order No. 1507 of 2003 (U.P.S.R.T.C. vs. Smt. Sukha Devi and Others) decided on 3.11.2016 (DB) and the Apex Court in U.P. State Road Transport Corporation vs. Kulsum and Others, 2011 (8) SCC 142 which are the judgments much prior in point of time as the judgment of the Tribunal is of 10.8.2017. There is no discussion by the Tribunal as to why the Insurance Company has not been mulcted with the liability despite the fact vehicle was insured, the driver had valid driving license and that there was no breach of policy conditions proved before the Tribunal. The award is silent about the same. 7. Similar mistake has been committed by the Division Bench of this Court which has been corrected by the Apex Court in U.P. State Road Transport Corporation vs. Rajendri Devi and Others (Supra). I am even fortified in my view by the decisions of this Court in U.P.S.R.T.C. vs. Smt. Sukha Devi and Others (Supra) and in First Appeal From Order No. 857 of 2000 (U.P.S.R.T.C. vs. Jainendra Srivastava and Others) decided on 17.4.2019. This Court, therefore, holds that the judgment and award of the Tribunal in not holding the Insurance Company liable is bad. 8. In view of the above, the appeal is allowed. The Insurance Company will have to deposit the amount within 12 weeks from today as per the order of the Tribunal and, if the amount has already been deposited by U.P.S.R.T.C. the same shall be refunded to the U.P.S.R.T.C. by the Insurance Company through owner of the vehicle. 9. The statutory deposit of Rs. 25,000/- shall be returned to U.P.S.R.T.C. 10. This Court is thankful to Sri. Sanjeev Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri. Brijesh Chandra Naik, learned counsel for the respondent for ably assisting this court. 11. A copy of this judgment be circulated to all the Tribunals in the State of U.P. so that in future where vehicle of U.P.S.R.T.C. is involved and if there is no breach of policy conditions as per Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the Insurance Company may be held liable.