in his cross-examination, he has admitted that their authority has received the penalty of Rs.71,625/- from the owner of the said vehicle which was valid from 08.09.2004 to 27.06.2013. Hence, from the crossexamination, it is clear that after payment of penalty of Rs.71,625/- the aforesaid permit was valid up from 08.09.2004 to 27.06.2013. Hence, it is clear that on the date of accident, the offending vehicle cannot be presumed to be without valid permit. Therefore, learned counsel for respondent No.3 cannot take much help from the case law titled as Jamil Khan vs. M/s Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited 2013(2) LJR 110, because in the aforesaid case, the offending vehicle was being plied without route permit in violation of terms and conditions of the insurance policy, but in the case in hand after payment of penalty the validity of the permit has been made effective from 08.09.2004 to 27.06.2013. Hence, respondent No.1 being driver, respondent No.2 being owner and respondent No.3 being insurer of the offending vehicle are jointly and severally liable to pay the amount of compensation to petitioner. Hence, the findings on issue No.2 are returned in favour of the petitioner and findings on issue No.4 are returned against respondent No.3.”
