( 1 ) THESE three appeals arise out of the same accident occurred Ortapril 4, 1982. Therefore, they are disposed of by a common judgment. The Tribunal below also disposed of all the three original petitions by a common judgment.

( 2 ) THE appellant is the owner of the vehicle TNH 9145. One Saralarani and the respondents in the civil miscellaneous appeals, her husband and children along with one Radha Vallabha Swamy were proceeding in the car TNW 8262 from Tirumala to Madras. When the car reached Anjalamma kanuma it is the appellant s case, the driver Dandapani was driving the bus. The driver of the car by name Kabali rashly and negligently drove the car and as a result of which the accident has taken place. Therefore, the appellant is not liable for payment of any damages as compensation for the loss of the lives of Sarala Rani, Kabali the driver of the car and also for the injuries caused to the first respondent, Suresh Gupta.

( 3 ) ON the other hand, the case of the first respondent and the widowand children of the driver Kabali is that they were proceeding in the car and when they reached Anjalamma Kanuma on Tirumala-Madras road, the vehicle was driven by one Elumalai, an unauthorised driver, and dashed against the car as a result of which Sarala Rani, Kabali died and the first respondent sustained serious injuries and consequently they have laid a claim.

( 4 ) THE Tribunal below has accepted the claim of the respondents. It held that it was Elumalai that was driving the vehicle, that he had no licence, that be is an unauthorised driver and that he rashly and negligently had driven the vehicle of the appellant. Elumalai is no other than the son of the appellant. Therefore, the occurrence has taken place as a resultof rash and negligent driving of the driver Elumalai. Since Elumalai is an unlicensed driver, the Insurance Company is not liable. Accordingly, the Tribunal granted a sum of Rs. 41, 940/- towards the loss of life, loss of support, pain and suffering and parental affection of Sarala Rani towards her children and her husband.

( 5 ) C. M. A. No. 491 of 1986 has been filed against the award ofcompensation passed ia O. P. No. 209 of 1982. For the death of the deceased driver Kabali, a sum of Rs. 43, 860/- was granted in O. P. No. 211 of 1982 as against the total claim of Rs. 1,20, 000/- and against which C. M. A. No. 492 of 1986 has been filed. For the injuries sustained by Suresh gupta, the first respondent, a sum of Rs. 21, 200/- was granted as against the claim of Rs. 55,00/- in O. P. No. 2 IC of 1982 and against which C. M. A. No. 493 of 1986 has been filed.

( 6 ) SRI K. Somakonda Reddy, the learned counsel for the appellant,has firstly contended that the appellant hud employed Dandapani as a licensed driver, that he was driving the vehicle at the time of the accident and that he temporarily kept in-charge of Elumalai. Therefore, what is required under law, viz. , owner entrusting the vehicle to the authorised driver, has been done by the appellant as a owner. Merely because an unauthorised driver has driven the vehicle, the liability is not excepted pursuant to the policy. Therefore, the Insurance Company is liable for the payment thereof. In support of his contention, he placed strong reliance on the decision reported in Skandia Insurance Company Limited vs. Kokilaben Chandravadav and others 1

( 7 ) THE question, therefore, is whether the Insurance Company isliable for the payment of compensation for the loss of the lives of Sarala rani, Kabali ths driver of the car and for the injuries caused to the first respondent Sureh Gupta by virtue cf the insurance policy taken by the appellant-insured against the insurer. Sec. 96 of the Motor Vehicles Act, act 4 of 1939, (for short the Act,) postulates the duty of insurers to satisfy judgments against persons insured in respect of third party risks and it reads thus: "96 : Duty of insurers to satisfy judgments against persons insured in respect of third p