ORDER : Nupur Bhati, J. 1. This misc. appeal has been filed by the appellant/owner of the offending vehicle aggrieved by judgment and award dated 20.12.2007 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bhilwara Camp Shahpura (hereinafter referred to as ‘Tribunal’) in MAC Case No.184/2006 : Ganga Ram & Ors. vs. Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. whereby while awarding compensation in favour of claimants, the liability to satisfy the award has been fastened upon the appellant while exonerating the insurance company from its liability. 2. The instant appeal is reported to be barred by 2315 days and an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act has been filed by the appellant seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal. 3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that claimants, namely, Ganga Ram, Smt. Galol, Smt. Santra @ Sampati and Ramraj filed a claim petition before the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Bhilwara Camp Shahpura claiming compensation on account of death of their sole bread winner late Sh. Madanlal, who lost his life in an accident, which took place on 25.07.2006. In the claim petition, it was inter-alia alleged that on 25.07.2006 late Sh. Madanlal along with Bajrang Singh and Banwari were coming Bhilwara on Motorcycle No.RJ-06-7171, then at about 06:00 pm, while they reach near Octroi Post, situated at Jahajpur, no-nclaimant (driver of the offending Tanker vehicle No.HR-38A-6372) while plying the vehicle rashly and negligently applied its break suddenly and on account of applying break suddenly, the motorcycle, collided behind the tanker, as a result of which the riders of the motorcycle sustained grievous injuries. The injured persons were removed to CHC, Jahajpur, however, looking the grievousness of the injuries suffered by Sh. Madanlal, he was referred to Bhilwara, however, during treatment, Sh. Madanlal died. The accident took place on account of rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle. At the time of accident, deceased Madanlal was working as supervisor in cloth factory and earning Rs.5000/- per month. Thus, the claimants filed claim claiming compensation of Rs.53,80,000/- on account of untimely death of Sh. Madanlal. A report of the aforesaid accident was given at Police Station Jahajpur, wherein after investigation Challan was filed against driver, namely, Radheyshyam. 4. At the time of accident, deceased Madanlal was working as supervisor in cloth factory and earning Rs.5000/- per month. Thus, the claimants filed claim claiming compensation of Rs.53,80,000/- on account of untimely death of Sh. Madanlal. A report of the aforesaid accident was given at Police Station Jahajpur, wherein after investigation Challan was filed against driver, namely, Radheyshyam. 4. The appellant/non-claimants i.e. owner and non-claimant driver of the offending vehicle, though were provided opportunity to file their reply, but they had not filed any reply and therefore, on 10.07.2007 the opportunity of filing reply was closed. Nonclaimant i.e. insurance company filed its reply while refuting the facts and claim made by the claimants. Various objections with regard to driver of the vehicle not having the valid and effective licence and permit were also raised by the non-claimant insurance company. Thus by filing the reply to the claim petition, the non-claimant insurance company prayed for dismissal of the claim petition. 5. As per the pleadings of the parties, the learned Tribunal proceeded to frame four issues for its consideration. In support of the claim, the claimants examined AW.1 Gangaram, AW.2 Bajrang Singh. In documentary evidence, the claimants got exhibits 11 documents. From the side of non-claimant/insurance company NAW.1- K.M. Joshi was examined and five documents were exhibited. 6. The learned Tribunal after considering the arguments advanced and the material placed before it, vide its judgment and award dated 20.12.2007 proceeded to partly allowed the claim petition filed by the claimants and awarded compensation to the claimants to the tune of Rs.4,18,000/- with 6% interest p.a. The liability to pay the compensation was, however, fastened upon the non-claimant (appellant/owner herein) and the non-claimant insurance company was exonerated from its liability to pay the compensation, though the vehicle was insured with it and the appellant/owner was having valid permit to ply the vehicle. 7. The appellant/owner thus aggrieved of the impugned award dated 20.12.2007 has preferred this misc. petition challenging the same to the extent of fastening the liability to pay the compensation upon the appellant/owner. 8. It is seen that in the instant appeal, a Coordinate Bench of this Court allowed deletion the names of claimants/respondent No.1 to 4 and non/claimant/respondent from the array of respondents. Counsel for the appellant filed amended cause title in the Court, which is taken on record. 9. 8. It is seen that in the instant appeal, a Coordinate Bench of this Court allowed deletion the names of claimants/respondent No.1 to 4 and non/claimant/respondent from the array of respondents. Counsel for the appellant filed amended cause title in the Court, which is taken on record. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant/owner submits that the delay in filing the present appeal occurred for the reason that firstly the appellant was not informed of the judgment and award dated 20.12.2007 by the concerned counsel and it was only when the execution proceedings were initiated against the appellant, the appellant came to know of the said award and the fact that the valid permit that was issued in favour of the appellant, was not placed on record before the Tribunal. Learned counsel for the appellant/owner submits that the appellant/owner being aggrieved of the judgment and award dated 20.12.2007 upon coming to know of filing of execution petition and passing of the impugned judgment dated 20.12.2017, initially preferred a review before the learned Tribunal and the same came to be dismissed vide order dated 03.10.2013, and against which the appellant/owner preferred a writ petition before this Court being SBCWP No.14136/2013, however, the said writ petition was also dismissed vide order dated 14.05.2014. He further submits that the appellant thereafter applied for certified copy of the judgment and award dated 20.12.2007 and immediately preferred the present appeal. 10. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that photostat copy of the permit was made available to the insurance company by the appellant vide correspondence dated 27.10.2007, and thereafter the appellant sent the original permit to the insurance company through speed post, however, despite having the knowledge that the appellant was having valid permit on the relevant date and time, the insurance company raised objection with regard to appellant not having valid permit. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that a claim petition was also filed by another claimant, viz. Smt. Maya Devi, arising out of same accident, the claim petition was registered as MAC Case No.521/2006 and the said claim petition was allowed by learned MACT, Bhilwara vide judgment and award dated 14.01.2009. He further submits that in the aforesaid claim petition, the present appellant/owner filed the permit, and while passing the judgment and award dated 14.01.2009, the liability to pay the compensation was fastened upon the insurance company. 11. He further submits that in the aforesaid claim petition, the present appellant/owner filed the permit, and while passing the judgment and award dated 14.01.2009, the liability to pay the compensation was fastened upon the insurance company. 11. Learned counsel for the respondent/non-claimant insurance company vehemently submitted that the appellant, though was aware of passing of the impugned judgment and award, however, did not file the appeal within limitation. He further submits that the delay occasioned in filing the appeal has not been explained and, therefore, the appeal deserves to be dismissed on the ground of limitation itself. 12. Having regard to the submissions made by counsel for the parties and considering the fact that in another claim petition for the same accident against the appellant/owner, driver and the insurance company, the permit was produced and the liability was fastened upon the insurance company, (the said fact has not been denied by counsel for the respondent insurance company), and the fact that the appellant has availed other remedies challenging the impugned judgment and award dated 20.12.2007, in the interest of justice, the delay occasioned in filing the present appeal is condoned. The application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is accordingly allowed. 13. The appellant/owner has also filed an application (I.A. 1261/16) under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC read with Section 151 CPC, along with which copies of the correspondences wrote by the appellant to the insurance company and copy of judgment and award dated 14.01.2009 passed in MAC Case No.521/2006 : Smt. Maya Devi & Ors. vs. Radheyshyam & Ors. arising out of same accident, wherein the liability to satisfy the award/compensation was fastened upon the insurance company and not on the appellant. Further, along with said application, the appellant has also annexed copy of the permit issued by the competent authority i.e. District Transport Officer, Faridaban (Haryana), which was exhibited in another MAC Case No.521/2006. (Annex.5 at Internal Page No.15 of the application). 14. Further, along with said application, the appellant has also annexed copy of the permit issued by the competent authority i.e. District Transport Officer, Faridaban (Haryana), which was exhibited in another MAC Case No.521/2006. (Annex.5 at Internal Page No.15 of the application). 14. Learned counsel for the appellant/owner submits that two claim petitions were filed arising out of same accident; one before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bhilwara Camp at Shahpura; which claim petition was decided by impugned judgment and award dated 20.12.2007, wherein the liability to satisfy the award was fastened upon the appellant; and other claim petition was filed by the other claimants before the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Bhilwara being Claim Case No.521/2006 (Smt. Maya Devi Vs. Radheshyam and Ors.), which was decided vide judgment and award dated 14.01.2009 by MACT, Bhilwara while holding the Insurance Company liable for compensation on the ground that the present appellant was having a valid permit for the offending vehicle. Learned counsel for the appellant/owner placed reliance upon judgment passed by this Court in the case of Birma Ram v. Manju & Ors. : 2013 (1) DNJ 399 and M/s Shri Ram Trading v. Khuma & Ors. : 2015 (3) ACC 84 and the judgment passed by Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Alam Khan & Anr. v. ICICI Lombard Motor Insurance Co. & Ors. : 2010 (2) CCR 787 (P&H). 15. Learned counsel for the respondent– Insurance Company vehemently objects and submits that the copy of the valid permit was well within the knowledge of the appellant but he did not choose to submit the same before the learned Tribunal and thus, the appellant himself did not choose to prefer the present appeal well in time, if he was aggrieved of the award dated 20.12.2007. 16. 16. Having regard to the submissions made by counsel for the parties and considering the fact that in another claim petition arising out of same accident, wherein the respondent insurance company was also party and was aware of the fact that the appellant had produced permit issued in his favour, however, has raised objection in the instant claim case that the appellant was not having the valid permit to ply the vehicle and has not produced the same before the Tribunal, the application (I.A. 1261/16) filed by the appellant under Order 41 Rule 27 read with Section 151 CPC is allowed, the documents filed along with application are taken on record. 17. At the request of the counsel for the parties, the appeal is being finally heard. 18. I have considered the submissions made by counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 19. The only basis for drawing the adverse inference by the learned Tribunal was the absence of the valid permit for plying the vehicle. Once the existence of the valid permit by way of certificate issued by the concerned RTO was produced alongwith review and was part and parcel in another claim (Claim Case No. 521/2006), the said reason given by learned Tribunal while fastening the liability to satisfy the award upon the appellant/owner no longer exists. 20. This Court also finds that two claim petitions were preferred by the claimants arising out of the same accident out of which one of the claim petition was decided by order dated 27.12.2007 against the present appellant and the other claim petition was decided against the Insurance Company vide judgment dated 14.01.2009 while considering the fact that the appellant was having a valid permit to ply the vehicle in his favour. 21. In an identical case involving same issue, a Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Birma Ram (supra) has held as under: “The only basis for drawing the adverse inference by the MACT was the absence of a valid permit for plying the vehicle. Once the existence of said permit by way of certificate issued by the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Bikaner is taken in to consideration, the said reason given by the MACT no longer exists. It is also pointed out that the award has already been satisfied by the insurance company. Once the existence of said permit by way of certificate issued by the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Bikaner is taken in to consideration, the said reason given by the MACT no longer exists. It is also pointed out that the award has already been satisfied by the insurance company. In that view of the matter, the judgment and award passed by the MACT is modified to the extent that the finding on issue No.2 is reversed and it is held that the insurance company is liable to make payment of the amount of compensation and consequently, the award is also modified and it is held that all the respondents are jointly and severally liable for payment of the compensation and the direction to the extent of insurance company recovering the amount, after paying it to the claimants, from the owner stands set-aside. The amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited in terms of proviso to Section 173 of the M.V. Act, if lying deposited with the MACT may be refunded back to the appellant. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. No costs” 22. Thus in view of above discussion, the appeal is allowed. The judgment and award dated 20.12.2007 passed by learned Tribunal in MAC Case No.184/2006 : Ganga Ram & Ors. vs. Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors., is modified and it is held that the insurance company is liable to make payment of the amount of compensation, which as per learned counsel for the parties has already been made and consequently the award is also modified and it is held that all the respondents are jointly and severally liable for payment of the compensation and the direction to the extent of insurance company recovering the amount, after paying it to the claimants, from the owner i.e. the present appellant. stands set aside.