JUDGMENT : Maulik J.Shelat, J. 1. Admit. Learned advocate Mr.Krupali N. Bhatt waives service of notice of admission on behalf of respondent no.5 and Mr. Ruja N. Desai learned advocate waives service of notie of admissions for respondent no.4. The presence of original claimants are not required for adjudication to the present appeal as the issue of liability touching between the appellant and respondent no.5 – Insurance Company. 2. The present appeal is filed by the original opponent no.2- owner of the Luxury Bus bearing registration no. GJ.14.X.9396 under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act (herein after referred to as ‘the MV Act’) challenging judgment and award dated 21.10.2022 passed by the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal (Main) & Principal District Judge, Kachchh at Bhuj in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.270 of 2017. 3. The parties will be referred as their original position before the tribunal. 4. Short facts of the case appear to be as under; 4.1 On 17.07.2017, late Krunal Naisedhbhai Bhandari was travelling in Luxury bus No. GJ.14.X.9396 insured with original claimant no.3 – insurance company of the luxury bus no.GJ.14.X.9396, which met with an accident, wherein the said Krunal Naisedhbhai Bhandari sustained serious injuries and succumbed to it. 4.2 As the death of the deceased was due to rash and negligent driving on the part of the luxury bus involved in the accident, so the claimants have filed claim petition under Section 166 of the M.V. Act claiming compensation of Rs.2,00,00,000/- from driver, owner and insurance company of luxury bus. 4.3 The Opponent Nos.1 and 2 served with the notice but they have chosen not to contest the present petition. 4.4 The Opponent No.3 – insurance company appeared before the Tribunal and filed its written statement and contest the claim on all counts. 4.5 The Tribunal, after appreciating evidence on record, as there is no other vehicle involved with the accident, held that due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of luxury bus No. GJ.14.X.9396, the said Krunal Naisedhbhai Bhandari had sustained injuries and succumbed to it. 4.6 After appreciating the documentary and oral evidence on record, the Tribunal has awarded, in all, Rs.28,42,600/-. 4.6 After appreciating the documentary and oral evidence on record, the Tribunal has awarded, in all, Rs.28,42,600/-. So far as liability to pay compensation by the opponents are concerned, opponent no.3 – insurance company has raised its defense that at the time of accident, there was no valid and effective permit of luxury bus and for the said reason, it has repudiated even own damage claim of luxury bus, which was produced at Exh.45. 4.7 Thus, in view of the aforesaid facts and the defense raised by the insurance company and taking into consideration ratio laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Amrit Paul Singh vs. Tata Aig General Insurance Co. Ltd., reported in AIR 2018 SC 2662 , the Tribunal has exonerated the opponent no.3 – insurance company, albeit, directed it to first pay compensation then recover it from the driver and owner of the luxury bus no.GJ.14.X.9396. So, opponent No.2 has preferred the appeal, thereby challenged the impugned judgment and award. 5. Before adverting to the merits of the case, we would like to observe that appellant herein appears to have challenged the order dated 24.06.2024 passed by this Court before Hon’ble Supreme Court of India by way of the Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No.16262 of 2024 wherein, vide its order dated 30.07.2024, Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has stayed the order passed by this Court. It further appears that Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in its aforesaid order, directed the present appellant to deposit 50% of the awarded amount and to further deposit ligation costs to the claimants, stayed the order passed by this Court. 6. After going through the order passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India dated 30.07.2024, it appears that proceedings of the present appeal is not stayed. 7. With the request made by the learned advocates for the respective parties, including the present appellant, who has carried the matter before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India to take up this Appeal for final hearing and we have heard the matter at length on its merit. SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELLANT 8. Learned advocate Mr. Vilav K Bhatia appearing for the appellant would submit that at the time of accident, luxury bus no.GJ.14.X.9396 was carrying a valid contract carriage permit for the period between 02.12.2015 to 01.12.2020, which covers the date of accident i.e., 17.07.2017. SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELLANT 8. Learned advocate Mr. Vilav K Bhatia appearing for the appellant would submit that at the time of accident, luxury bus no.GJ.14.X.9396 was carrying a valid contract carriage permit for the period between 02.12.2015 to 01.12.2020, which covers the date of accident i.e., 17.07.2017. He would further submit that inadvertently on the part of owner of the bus – opponent no.2, who could not appear before the Tribunal, submitted its version including the aforesaid contract carriage permit. He would request this Court to remand the matter back to the Tribunal for adjudication of the issue of liability as according to learned advocate, when there is a valid permit, which is shown to this Court, being a public document, an opportunity of hearing was sought for. 8.1 He would lastly request that when there was a valid insurance policy obtained by opponent no.2 – owner of the bus then it was statutory liability on the part of insurance company to pay compensation, thereby, to indemnify the risk of owner of vehicle as per the provisions of M.V.Act. Alternatively, he would request that a document, which has been tendered to this Court showing a valid contract carriage permit of Luxury bus in question, the issue may be decided in the present appeal as well. So he would request this Court to pass appropriate order. SUBMISSION OF THE RESPONDENT 9. Per contra, learned advocate Mr.Krupali N Bhatt appearing for the respondent no.5 -insurance company would submit that an opportunity was given to the driver and owner to appear before the Tribunal but they have not appeared. At this stage, the matter cannot be remanded back for deciding the issue of liability afresh by the Tribunal. Such claim petition is of the year, 2017. Nevertheless, she is fairly stated that a document of contract carriage permit, which was tendered by the learned advocate, Mr.Bhatia to this Court was cross-verified by the Opponent No.3 – Insurance Company, which got a confirmation from the concerned RTO (Regional Transport Office) about its genuineness as well as its validity covered the date of accident. Nevertheless, she is fairly stated that a document of contract carriage permit, which was tendered by the learned advocate, Mr.Bhatia to this Court was cross-verified by the Opponent No.3 – Insurance Company, which got a confirmation from the concerned RTO (Regional Transport Office) about its genuineness as well as its validity covered the date of accident. 9.1 So in view of the aforesaid, she would request this Court that after taking note of a new fact and a document, which has been tendered by the appellant, which is considered to be a public document, an appropriate order may be passed by this Court in the interests of justice. 10. Learned advocate Mr. Raju M. Desai for respondent no.4 – driver has adopted the argument of learned advocate Mr. Mr. Vilav K Bhatia appearing for the appellant. 11. Heard the learned advocates for the respective parties. No other submissions are made. POINT OF DETERMINATION. (i) Whether, in the facts and circumstance of the case, can the opponent no.2 – owner of the luxury bus be held liable to pay compensation? APPRECIATION OF SUBMISSIONS 12. After hearing the learned advocates for the respective parties and going through the impugned judgment and award, prima facie, it appears that opponent no.2 having not to appear before the Tribunal and not submitted a copy of valid contract carriage permit of Luxury Bus No. GJ.14.X.9396 resulted into passing of the award by the Tribunal, whereby, it has directed insurance company to first pay the compensation then recover from the opponent no.2. There is cavil that in absence of any valid permit, no commercial vehicle can ply in public place. If there is any such breach on the part of owner of the vehicle, in view of ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Amrit Paul Singh (supra), insurance company is entitled to recover compensation from the owner of the vehicle. 13. To that extent, we do not find any error on the part of the Tribunal in passing the Impugned judgment and award. The matter does not rest here. 13. To that extent, we do not find any error on the part of the Tribunal in passing the Impugned judgment and award. The matter does not rest here. On facts now, we have been provided with a copy of valid contract carriage permit, which is so confirmed by the Opponent no.3 – insurance company, thereby it is genuine and valid covering the period of date of accident would suggest that as on the date of accident, the vehicle in question i.e., Luxury Bus no. GJ.14.X.9396 was carrying a valid contract carriage permit. If it be so, then insurance company cannot be permitted to recover compensation from the owner of the vehicle because when it issued an insurance policy under provisions of M.V.Act, it is a statutory duty of insurance company to indemnify the risk of owner of the vehicle subject to any breach of condition of policy, if any. 14. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstance of the case, when there is a valid contract carriage permit of luxury bus No.GJ.14.X.9396 comes on record, which is so confirmed by the Insurance Company, we would like to interfere with the impugned judgment and award to the extent of liability so fixed by the Tribunal. CONCLUSION 15. In view of the aforesaid discussions and reasons, this appeal is required to be allowed, whereby, impugned judgment and award is stand modified to the extent that opponent no.3 – Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation to the claimants and having no right of recovery in its favour to get such compensation amount from the appellant – opponent no.2 – owner of the luxury bus as there is a valid and effective permit of bus existed at the time of accident. 16. The appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent. No order as to costs. In sequel, the Civil Application is also disposed of.