Counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company submits that admittedly there is violation of terms and condition of the policy, thus the principle of “pay and recover” should have been applied by the Tribunal in this case. As per him, the accident had taken place on 02.03.2013 and on that date the offending vehicle which is a truck did not have a valid permit. In absence of permit, the truck should not have been allowed to ply on the road. It is his contention that since the vehicle plied on the road without permit, there is violation of terms and conditions of the policy. Thus, the Insurance Company is not liable to indemnify the owner of the vehicle. He contends that in view of the aforesaid fact the Tribunal should have granted “right to recover” the amount from the owner of the vehicle, which the Insurance Company was directed to pay to the claimants. He also takes another ground of contributory negligence. As per him, the deceased was also negligent in driving the vehicle. As per him, the Tribunal should have held that there was a contributory negligence on the part of the deceased and should have apportioned the amount of compensation. As per him, the interest @ 8% which was imposed is on much higher side.
