JUDGMENT : Radhakishan Agrawal, J. 1.This appeal is by the driver/owner against the award dated 13.01.2016 passed by Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gariyaband (C.G.) in Claim Case No. 35 of 2014 awarding total compensation of Rs. 4,73,300/- with interest @ 6 % per annum, in favour of the claimants and against the appellant/owner-driver making him liable for payment of compensation. 2.As per claim petition, on 19.12.2013, the deceased Kriparam was going towards Madeli from Jatma while riding his motorcycle in a moderate speed. When he reached near Kamar Tola Basti at that time the appellant while driving the Tata Magic Vehicle bearing registration No. CG 04 T 7749 (herein after referred to as ‘the offending vehicle’), in a rash and negligent manner, dashed the motorcycle of the deceased, due to which, he died on account of injuries sustained by him in the accident. At the time of accident, the offending vehicle was owned and driven by the appellant and was duly insured with respondent No. 11/ Insurer. 3.On account of death of Kriparam, a claim petition was filed seeking compensation of Rs. 94,00,000/- on various heads. The claim petition was resisted by the non-applicants. The parties led evidence before the claims tribunal. The Tribunal, considering the evidence led by the parties passed an award as mentioned in para 1 of this judgment. 4.Learned counsel for the appellant submits that at the time of accident, the offending vehicle was not in running condition and it was being towed to a mechanic with the help of other vehicle, therefore, there is no requirement of permit & fitness and that the offending vehicle was insured with the insurance company on the date of incident, therefore, the Insurance Company is liable to indemnify the compensation. 5.Learned counsel for the respondents No. 1 to 9 while admitting that there is no appeal by the claimants against the impugned award submits that the learned claims Tribunal after considering the evidence and material brought on record, has rightly held the appellant liable to indemnify the compensation and if this Court comes to the conclusion that there was breach of policy condition then in that view of the matter a direction with respect to pay and recover may be issued. 6.On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 11/Insurance company while admitting that no appeal has been filed by the insurance company against the impugned award, submits that the offending vehicle is a passenger carrying vehicle and it was being plied without fitness and permit. She further submits that the offending vehicle was not in a running condition and it was being towed with the help of other vehicle, such fact has not been disclosed by the appellant in the final report submitted by the police against the driver & owner of the offending vehicle. She further submits that the offending vehicle was not having permit and fitness and the driver of the offending vehicle was also not having proper driving license to drive the passenger carrying vehicle, therefore, it was found that there is violation of policy condition. Hence, the insurance company is not liable to indemnify the claim. She has placed reliance upon the decision of Division Bench of this Court in the matter of Sanat Dhurve and Another v. Lekhram Sahu and Another passed in MAC No. 569 of 2014 vide judgment dated 04.09.2020 to contend that there was no direction of pay and recover issued by the Tribunal. 7.I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record carefully. 8.In order to deal with first contention, I shall deal with the statement of NAW-1, Nemuram Sinha (appellant herein) wherein, it has been stated by him that on the date of incident he was driving the offending vehicle and the motorcycle which was being driven by its driver came to wrong side and dashed the offending vehicle and due to such dash Kriparam died. He has further stated that the offending vehicle was damaged and it was being towed, at that time the deceased by his own negligence dashed the offending vehicle. He further reiterated the fact that the offending vehicle was being taken for repairing and on return the accident occurred. In his cross-examination, he admitted that no offence was registered against the deceased and further admitted that in fact offence was registered against him for rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle which is pending before Chief Judicial Magistrate Gariyaband. Further, admitted in cross-examination that the offending vehicle was passenger carrying vehicle plying between Rajim to Tarighat. In his cross-examination, he admitted that no offence was registered against the deceased and further admitted that in fact offence was registered against him for rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle which is pending before Chief Judicial Magistrate Gariyaband. Further, admitted in cross-examination that the offending vehicle was passenger carrying vehicle plying between Rajim to Tarighat. He specifically admitted that on the date of accident he was not possessing valid and effective permit and fitness which in fact was required for plying taxi vehicle. Lastly, he stated that the offending vehicle was damaged vehicle and was being towed to mechanic. 9.A perusal of above evidence coupled with the Final Report and other Criminal Papers, marked as Ex. P/1 to P/9, submitted by police before the Court of CJM Gariyaband under Sections 279, 337, 304-A of IPC and under Section 56/192 of M.V. Act against Nemuram Sinha (appellant i.e. Owner-driver), the fact that on the date of accident, the offending vehicle was being towed to mechanic was not disclosed in the above criminal papers. Furthermore, the factum of offending vehicle being towed to mechanic has also not been proved by the appellant himself by examining any witness in that regard. Further, it is also specifically admitted by him that on the date of accident the driver was not possessing valid and effective permit and fitness, thus, it is clear that the offending vehicle was being plied without having valid and effective permit and fitness. 10.Applying the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the matter of Amrit Paul Singh and Others vs. TATA A.I.G. General Insurance Company Ltd reported in (2018) 7 SCC 558 in MAC No. 924 of 2019 (Shrawan Kumar Kaushik and another vs. Smt. Nutam Pandey and others), decided on 01.05.2023, this Court has already held and settled that driving of a vehicle without valid permit and fitness certificate would be considered a violation of terms of the insurance policy. 11.So far as the point raised by the appellant that since the offending vehicle was insured with the insurer, therefore, direction of pay and recover is concerned, a Division Bench of this Court in MAC No. 569 of 2014 (supra) has held in Para 14 and 15 as under: 14. Learned counsel for the appellants argued that learned Claims Tribunal erred in not issuing a direction of pay and recover. Learned counsel for the appellants argued that learned Claims Tribunal erred in not issuing a direction of pay and recover. He places reliance of judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Shamanna Vs Oriental Insurance Company Limited reported in (2018) 9 SCC 650 in which Hon'ble Supreme Court has considered the issue of 'pay and recover' in case of breach of conditions of Insurance Policy on account of the driver not having valid and effective driving license and not having valid permit. Learned Claims Tribunal while passing the impugned award has not issued any such direction for pay and recover and non-issuance of direction of pay and recover if at all, is against the interest of the claimant. 15. In this case, claimant has not chosen to approach this Court for seeking a direction of pay and recover by way of filing an appeal, more so, he has accepted the award passed by learned Claims Tribunal. The directions to pay and recover is only to protect the interest of the claimants and not to benefit the owner or driver, who are wrong doers as they drove the vehicle in breach of conditions of the Insurance Policy. 12. A perusal of above case would reveal that the claimant therein has not chosen to approach the Court for seeking a direction of pay and recover by way of filing an appeal, more so, he has accepted the award passed by learned Claims Tribunal. In this case also the claimants did not seek any direction of pay and recover by way of filing separate appeal. As held in that case, the direction to pay and recover is only to protect the interest of the claimants and not to benefit the owner or driver. 13.The learned Tribunal after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence has rightly held the appellant/owner liable for payment of compensation since there was no valid and effective permit and fitness on the date of accident. The finding recorded by the learned claims Tribunal based on evidence is a correct finding of fact, it is neither perverse nor contrary to the record. 14.For the foregoing discussion, I do not find any merit in this appeal, it is liable to be and is hereby dismissed.