JUDGMENT : SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, J. Heard Mr. Ashutosh Anand, learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. Aditya Banerjee, learned counsel for opposite party nos. 1 and 2 and Mr. Anjani Kumar, learned counsel for opposite party no.3. 2. This appeal has been preferred against the award dated 08.06.2023 passed by the learned Principal District Judge cum Presiding Officer, Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal, West Singhbhum at Chaibasa in Motor Accident Claims Case No.12/2021. 3. Mr. Ashutosh Anand, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant-insurance company challenged the said award on the ground that the identity of the deceased is not proved and in view of that, the claimants are not entitled for compensation and secondly, he has raised issue that the vehicle in question was running without any permit and, therefore, liability cannot be fastened upon the insurance company. 4. Mr. Aditya Banerjee, learned counsel for opposite party nos. 1 and 2 draws attention of the Court to paragraph 12 of the discussion made with regard to the deceased in the judgment of the learned Tribunal and submits that cogent finding has been given on that aspect. He further submits that so far as Parivarik Suchi is concerned, the alias name of the deceased may not be there, but the name of the father is disclosed and date of death is same i.e. 11.01.2020. 5. Mr. Anjani Kumar, learned counsel for opposite party no.3, who is the owner of the said vehicle, submits that since the vehicle in question is Mahindra Supro Mini Truck and its weight was 1850 Kgs and in light of Sub- section (3)(i) of Section 66 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the permit is not required. He further submits that before the learned Tribunal, the owner has not been able to appear and in view of that, the case has been proceeded against the owner ex-parte. 6. He further submits that before the learned Tribunal, the owner has not been able to appear and in view of that, the case has been proceeded against the owner ex-parte. 6. From the judgment of the learned Tribunal, it transpires that the said compensation case was registered stating therein that on 11.01.2020 at about 12:00 p.m. deceased namely, Ghasi Nath Gope @ Nandkishor Gope proceeded for Jagannathpur from village-Pokam traveling in offending vehicle Mahindra Supro Pick-up bearing registration No. JH-06M-4648, at about 12:30 p.m. while he reached near ‘Talab More’ ahead to village – Todanghatu the said vehicle turned over due to rash and negligent driving by its driver resulted, deceased namely, Ghasi Nath Gope @ Nandkishor Gope sustained injuries upon his person and moved to C.H.C., Jagannathpur by the people nearby where he died during course of treatment. On the basis of fardbayan of informant Abhishek Gope, son of the deceased formal FIR was lodged for the offence u/s 279 and 304A of IPC against driver of the alleged offending vehicle Mahindra Supro Pick-up bearing registration No. JH-06M-4648. After investigation submitted charge sheet against the said driver namely, Rajendra Prasad, who was driving the said vehicle. Postmortem upon dead body of the deceased namely, Ghasi Nath Gope @ Nandkishor Gope was conducted at Sadar Hospital, Chaibasa on 11.01.2020. Appellant nos. 1 and 2, who are son and daughter of the deceased had filed the claim application before the learned Tribunal claiming compensation amount of Rs. 12,90,000/-. 7. So far as the first point of the appellant-insurance company with regard to identity of the deceased is concerned, it transpires that in the charge-sheet the name of the deceased is disclosed as Ghasi Nath Gope @ Nandkishor Gope. A.W.1, namely, Abhishek Gope has also disclosed the name of the deceased as Ghasi Nath Gope @ Nandkishor Gope. Only on the basis of Aadhar Card and Parivarik Suchi, where, alias name is not there, the said dispute has been raised by the insurance company, but it is an admitted position that in such accident, the insurance company appoints their own investigator and the insurance company’s investigator has not stated anything on the identity of the deceased. In the Parivarik Suchi also, the date of accident is same and the name of the petitioner is disclosed as Ghasi Nath Gope. 8. In the Parivarik Suchi also, the date of accident is same and the name of the petitioner is disclosed as Ghasi Nath Gope. 8. Admittedly, Abhishek Gope who is the son of the deceased, has lodged the FIR. The FIR, investigation and charge-sheet have not been challenged by the insurance company at the earlier point of time and in view of that, the finding of the learned Tribunal is correct one and the insurance company has not been able to demolish the said finding and in view of the document, which has been brought on record. 9. In the insurance policy, the weight of the vehicle is disclosed as 1850 Kgs. Section 66 of the Motor Vehicles Act speaks of necessity for permits. Sub-section (3)(i) of Section 66 of the said Act speaks that the provision of sub-section (1) shall not apply on certain conditions and one of the conditions is made as (i). Section 66(3)(i) of the said Act speaks as under: “ 66(3) The provisions of sub-section (1) shall not apply -------------- 66(3)(i) to any goods vehicle, the gross vehicle weight of which does not exceed 3,000 kilograms” In view of the said provision, it is crystal clear that if the weight of the vehicle is lesser than 3000 Kgs, permit is not required and in view of that, the stand of the insurance company with regard to permit is also not tenable. 10. In view of the above facts, reasons and analysis, the Court finds that there is no illegality in the impugned award and, as such, this appeal is dismissed. 11. Statutory amount deposited by the insurance company shall be transmitted to the learned Tribunal which will be utilized in satisfying the award in favour of the claimants and the award will be satisfied within eight weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. 12. At this stage, Mr. Ashutosh Anand, learned counsel for the appellant submits that so far as awarded amount is concerned, that has already been deposited before the learned Tribunal. 13. In view of the above, after satisfying the award, if any amount remains in balance, that will be returned back to the insurance company and if any amount is needed, the insurance company will further deposit the amount before the learned Tribunal. 14. Pending I.A., if any, is disposed of. 15. 13. In view of the above, after satisfying the award, if any amount remains in balance, that will be returned back to the insurance company and if any amount is needed, the insurance company will further deposit the amount before the learned Tribunal. 14. Pending I.A., if any, is disposed of. 15. Let the Trial Court Records be sent back to the learned Court forthwith.