JUDGMENT : Arun Kumar Rai, J. 1. Heard Mr. Hemant Kumar Shikarwar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant-The United India Insurance Company Limited. However, no one present on behalf of the respondents/claimants in spite of substituted service of notice (paper publication). 2. The instant miscellaneous appeal has been preferred by the appellant-The United India Insurance Company Limited against the award dated 23.02.2010 passed in Title Claim Suit No. 183 of 2006 wherein the learned 1st Additional District Judge-cum-M.V.A. Claims Tribunal, Jamshedpur has awarded a sum of Rs. 2,94,500/- to the respondents/claimants within 30 days from the date of award and upon failing, the appellant- The United India Insurance Company Limited, is entitled to pay interest @ 12% simple interest per annum from the date of order till final payment. 3. The brief facts of the case is that one Ram Pravesh Paswan was driver of truck (trailer) having Registration No. HR-38H-8012 and the said trailer was coming from Bisoi to Jashpur on 27.04.2003 and when the said trailer reached near Handipuwana Ghati within Jashpur Police Station, District – Mayurbhanj, Orrisa, the said trailer started rolling back and turned turtle, due to which, driver of the vehicle namely Ram Pravesh Paswan died on the spot. An F.I.R. regarding above said incident has been got registered being Jashpur P. S. Case No. 33 of 2003 under Sections 279/304A of IPC. The respondents/claimants, including wife, children and parents of the deceased-Ram Pravesh Paswan, filed an application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (in short M.V. Act, 1988). The owner of the vehicle and appellant-The United India Insurance Company Limited made opposite parties in the said application and they filed their respective written statement and denied their liability to pay the compensation. 4. On behalf of applicants/claimants, A.W. – 1, Munmun Devi, wife of the deceased-Ram Pravesh Paswan, adduced evidence reiterating the incident and uttering for entitlement of claim. 5. 4. On behalf of applicants/claimants, A.W. – 1, Munmun Devi, wife of the deceased-Ram Pravesh Paswan, adduced evidence reiterating the incident and uttering for entitlement of claim. 5. On behalf of opposite parties, O.P.W. – 1, Ashok Kumar Bose, Head Assistant at the office of Insurance Company got examined who proved the report regarding the permit which was seized from the trailer by the police official, submitted by one Sri Rakesh Dabaas, Advocate and got the same marked as Exhibit – A. Apart from O.P.W- 1, C.W. – 1, Mahendra Singh, has also been examined on commission at the behest of Appellant- The United India Insurance Company Limited. 6. After analyzing the material available on record, the Tribunal passed the impugned award dated 23.02.2010 thereby asked the appellant-The United India Insurance Company Limited to pay Rs. 2,94,500/-. 7. Being aggrieved with the above said impugned award dated 23.02.2010, the appellant- The United India Insurance Company Limited preferred this appeal and challenged the award on a very limited point that there was no valid permit to run the trailer and, therefore, liability cannot be foisted upon the appellant-The United India Insurance Company Limited on account of breach of terms and conditions and, therefore, there is liability is that of the owner. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant-The United India Insurance Company Limited drew attention of this Court towards Annexure – A and submitted that the permit which has been seized from the trailer by the police official has been verified from R.T.O. Faridabad by an Advocate namely, Rakesh Dabaas, who has given report that the said permit was not issued in the name of owner of the trailer having Registration No. HR 38H 8012 rather, it was in the name of Md. Sabbir, S/o Abdul Sabber. 9. Heard learned counsel and perused the material available on record. 10. Despite service of notice upon the owner through substituted mode of service (publication in newspaper) owner has chosen not to participate in the present proceeding. 11. The short question/point which has been agitated before this Court is that whether the trailer having Registration No. HR-38H-8012 is having valid permit or not. 10. Despite service of notice upon the owner through substituted mode of service (publication in newspaper) owner has chosen not to participate in the present proceeding. 11. The short question/point which has been agitated before this Court is that whether the trailer having Registration No. HR-38H-8012 is having valid permit or not. To examine the above said point, this Court carefully gone through the materials available on record and finds that one Ashok Kumar Bose who is Head Assistant, in United India Insurance Company Limited, at Divisional Office at Bistupur, Jamshedpur has stated in his examination-in-chief that Permit No. 5714/NP/FBD/2002 was verified from D.T.O., Faridabad by Rakesh Dabaas, Advocate, then it was found that the said permit was issued for vehicle having Registration No. HR-38H- 1886 and the owner of the said vehicle is Md. Sabbir, S/o Abdul Sabber and further that no permit has been issued from the D.T.O., Faridabad for the vehicle having Registration No. HR-38H-8012. The verification report given by Rakesh Dabaas, Advocate has been marked as Exhibit – A which corroborates that the said permit number has been issued for vehicle No. HR-38H-1886 and owner of said vehicle is Md. Sabbir. 12. The Tribunal has also framed an issue No. V regarding violation of the terms and conditions of policy and has observed in its findings that C.W. – 1, Mahendra Singh, is a Clerk At R.T.O. Office at Faridabad, has stated that the said permit was issued to one Md. Sabbir in respect of vehicle having Registration No. HR-38H-1886 and he has been examined in the present matter through the Pleader Commissioner. 13. But there is no reason for this Court to disbelieve the fact that the permit which was seized by the police official from the Trailer immediately after the incident has been found not issued for Trailer having Registration No. HR-38H-8012. 14. It would not be out of place to mention here that owner also participated in that claim proceeding before the Tribunal and he has not taken pain to come explicitly on this issue by bringing on record the permit issued for vehicle having Registration No. HR-38H-8012. 15. The Tribunal’s reason for not accepting the fact that the above said trailer was operating with a fake and forged permit is unfounded. 16. 15. The Tribunal’s reason for not accepting the fact that the above said trailer was operating with a fake and forged permit is unfounded. 16. In view of the above said discussions, this Court is having no hesitation to hold that there is a fake permit or no permit qua the vehicle i.e. having Registration No. HR-38H- 8012, as such, there is a violation/breach of terms and conditions by the owner. The Tribunal has foisted the liability upon the shoulder of the appellant-The United India Insurance Company Limited to immediately pay compensation amount to the respondents/claimants but has not given the right to recovery to appellant- The United India Insurance Company Limited, despite the fact that as observed by this Court in preceding paragraph that there is a violation/breach of terms and conditions by the owner of the vehicle. 17. Therefore, the award dated 23.02.2010 is modified to the extent that the right to recovery against the owner of the trailer having Registration No. HR-38H-8012 is given to the appellant-The United India Insurance Company Limited. 18. In view of the above discussions, the instant appeal is allowed. 19. As far as the payment of compensation amount is concerned, record reveals that Insurance Company has not indemnified the compensation amount to the claimants. 20. The statutory amount deposited by the insurance company be remitted to the Tribunal by learned Registrar General of this Court within a period of four weeks from today. Further the Insurance Company is directed to indemnify the award along with the interest as awarded, before the Tribunal within a period of 45 days, which shall be paid to the claimants by the learned Tribunal/executing court after notice and due verification.