ORDER : Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J. 1. Both these writ petitions are directed against the order passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat, Jamshedpur in P.L.A. No. 02 of 2008, whereby and whereunder, the claim application for damage to the insured vehicle was allowed with a direction to pay Rs.2,00,000/- as ex-gratia payment for the damage sustained by the vehicle. The liability was jointly and severely fixed both on M/s Magma Leasing Limited and the Insurance Company. 2. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 5408 of 2008 that the liability has been saddled on the company, which had financed the Tata Dumper, without any corresponding contract between the petitioner-company and respondent no. 1 to cover the risk of damages to the vehicle. 3. It is argued that the liability can be fixed only on the basis of the contract or if any statute provides liability to be fixed. In the present case, in absence of any such clause, liability has been imposed on ex-gratia basis which is unsustainable. 4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the Insurance Company that the vehicle was admittedly under its insurance cover at the time of accident but it was being plied without obtaining any valid permit, which was essential for a commercial vehicle. Permanent Lok Adalat in the impugned order has noted as under: “It is true that claimant should not ply the vehicle on road without obtaining or receiving Road Permit. The learned counsel for the claimant has not satisfied that depositing fee for issuance of Road Permit will amount of Road Permit from the date of depositing fee. In view of this matter, the claimant has breached the conditions of policy and not entitled to get any compensation.” 5. It is argued that despite the above finding recorded against the Respondent No.1, the compensation has been awarded which is impermissible. The policy covered damages only in the event of use of the vehicle on permit and in view of the fundamental breach of policy of insurance, the Insurance Company was not liable to pay the damages. Reliance is placed on National Insurance Co. The policy covered damages only in the event of use of the vehicle on permit and in view of the fundamental breach of policy of insurance, the Insurance Company was not liable to pay the damages. Reliance is placed on National Insurance Co. Ltd Vs Chella Bharathamma Appeal (civil) 6178 of 2004 wherein it has been held that Insurance Company shall not be liable, in a case arising out of motor vehicle accident for a claim of compensation under Section 166 of the M.V Act, where there was breach of terms and condition of the insurance policy as the owner of the vehicle permitted the use of the vehicle without any valid permit. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent no. 1 submits that the Tata Dumper was purchased by respondent no. 1 on 27.02.2007 and from the said date, the policy of insurance was effective. The requisite fee for issuance of permit was deposited by respondent no. 1 on 09.03.2007 and the permit was issued on 24.03.2007, whereas the accident took place resulting in damages to the vehicle on 23.03.2007. Thus, there was no laches on the part of the owner of the vehicle in getting the permit, which was duly granted only a day after the accident. For delay caused by the Govt. department, the owner cannot be penalized. 7. Having considered the submission advanced on behalf of both sides, it is indisputable that the vehicle was under the insurance cover from the date of its purchase effective at the time of its accident. Claim pertains to the damage caused to vehicle under insurance cover. Requisite fee for permit was deposited by the owner of the vehicle about a fortnight before the accident, which was formally issued only a day after the accident. 8. The question that arises is what was the fault on the part of the owner of the vehicle, so as to constitute breach of the terms of insurance policy? Before owner can be held liable for breach of terms and conditions of the insurance policy, there should be some willful omission or commission on his part which can be held to be amounted to breach of contract of the insurance. 9. Before owner can be held liable for breach of terms and conditions of the insurance policy, there should be some willful omission or commission on his part which can be held to be amounted to breach of contract of the insurance. 9. When the owner had been diligent to move the appropriate department for permit and had done everything possible to get it, he cannot be held liable for laxity on the part of the said government department. Breach occurs when there is lapse on the part of the party concerned and not when it occurs by any intervening circumstance beyond his control. It needs to be appreciated that commercial vehicle like that in the present case is purchased on being financed by a finance company, for which heavy monthly instalments are to be paid to the financer. It will not be practicable for the owner of the vehicle to keep it stationery till the govt department, after interminable delay, issues permit. It may result in huge loss to the owner of the vehicle. To deny insurance cover to such vehicle, where permit is applied for, well in advance completing all the requisite conditions, shall be inequitable and injudicious. 10. It is for this reason that in cases where the premium amount for insurance has been deposited by way of cheque, and due to delay in clearance the insurance policy cannot be issued before the accident, or even where the cheque is dishonoured, it has been held that the insurance company shall be liable to cover the risk if the policy of insurance has not been cancelled. It has been held in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Laxmamma , (2012) 5 SCC 234 : “26. In our view, the legal position is this: where the policy of insurance is issued by an authorised insurer on receipt of cheque towards the payment of premium and such a cheque is returned dishonoured, the liability of the authorised insurer to indemnify the third parties in respect of the liability which that policy covered subsists and it has to satisfy the award of compensation by reason of the provisions of Sections 147(5) and 149(1) of the MV Act unless the policy of insurance is cancelled by the authorised insurer and intimation of such cancellation has reached the insured before the accident.” 11. Although the present case is not about validity of insurance policy, but applying the above principle, that there was subsisting insurance policy and the owner of the vehicle had applied for permit well in advance and was also granted the same, only a day after the accident, it can be safely concluded that there was no breach of the terms of the insurance policy. The facts of the authority relied upon on behalf of the Insurance Company is quite different than one at hand. In that case the vehicle was being plied without any permit, and it was no one’s case that the owner had applied for the permit, well in advance and was pending with the concerned department. 12. For the reasons as discussed above, Insurance Company cannot escape liability to pay the damages, as awarded by the Permanent Lok Adalat, with 6% simple interest from the date of filing of claim application before the Lok Adalat to respondent no. 1, as there was no laches on his part in moving competent authority for permit. W. P. (C) No. 279 of 2009, accordingly, stands dismissed. 13. So far as W. P. (C) No. 5408 of 2008 is concerned, there was neither contractual or statutory liability on the part of the Finance Company to cover the risk of the vehicle against damage caused in accident. Under the circumstance, the liability fixed on it to pay the damages is not sustainable and is, accordingly, set aside. W.P.(C) No. 5408 of 2008 is, accordingly, allowed.