( 1 ) THE petitioner in the above C. R. P. has preferred this civil revision petition against the judgment and award dated 17. 8. 1996 passed in the case m. V. C. No. 776 of 1991 on the file of the ii Additional Civil Judge and Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bangalore Rural district, Bangalore.

( 2 ) THE Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal has passed an award of Rs. 6,000 only against the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 before the iower court and ultimately directing the respondent No. 3 alone, namely, United india Insurance Co. Ltd. , to pay the said amount as against the claim of Rs. 1,50,000 for the injuries sustained by the respondent no. 1 herein in a motor vehicle accident. Concluding that the driver of the lorry bearing No. MES 5994 is responsible for this accident and the respondent No. 2 being the owner of the said lorry is vicariously liable to pay the loss caused by the driver of the lorry and the respondent No. 3 being the insurer of the lorry is liable to indemnify the loss caused to the respondent No. 2, the owner of the vehicle, the award was granted.

( 3 ) ON behalf of the petitioner insurance company it is contended that the liability to indemnify the insured/owner of the vehicle will be subject to the owner of the lorry becoming liable to pay the compensation to the claimant in the case. Having dismissed the claim against the owner, the direction to the petitioner insurance company to pay compensation is an error committed by the trial court. Once the petition is dismissed against the owner, it should have been dismissed against the insurance company as well.

( 4 ) HEARD Mr. S. Srishaila, counsel for the petitioner. R-l and R-2 though served remained unrepresented.

( 5 ) ON facts, though in para 5 of the order, the trial court points out the dismissal of the petition as against the respondent No. 2 on 1. 7. 92, ultimately holds that the liability of the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 being joint and several allowing the petition partly against them directed only the insurance company to pay the compensation amount. In the final order it is seen that the petition against respondent No. 1 alone was dismissed.

( 6 ) RELIANCE was placed upon New India assurance Co. Ltd. v. Selvarajamani, 1998 0 ACJ 547 (Madras), wherein the High Court of Judicature at Madras held that (Sic. the learned Tribunal erred) when the Tribunal exonerated the owner but mulcted the liability on the insurance company, following the earlier dictum in United India insurance Co. Ltd. v. Lakshmi, 1990 0 ACJ 390 (Madras ). In the dictum of Oriental insurance Co. Ltd. v. Sunita Rathi, 1998 0 ACJ 121 (SC), the Supreme Court held that the insurer cannot be held liable on the basis of the policy as a liability has to be of the owner of the vehicle. The Supreme court found that the High Court, without assigning any reason, has simply assumed that the owner of the vehicle was not liable and the insurer alone was liable and such conclusion reached by the High Court was clearly erroneous. The liability of the insurer arises only when the liability of the insured has been upheld for the purpose of indemnifying the insured under the contract of insurance. The finding of the High court was set aside in that case. Reference was also made to the case of the National insurance Co. Ltd. v. Prakashchand Hanuman, 1997 0 ACJ 960 (Karnataka ). The facts in that case as enumerated in the court itself are available in para 3, which is as follows: "this position is virtually unanswerable. The respondents' learned advocate at that stage pointed out to me that the applicants are all petty shopkeepers virtually running their business on the sidewalks, that their status is such that they virtually do not know anything about the niceties of these proceedings and that on enquiries with the learned advocate who conducted the matter, he is informed that it was due to an error of law, that the application was made for dismissal of the proceedings against the owner and the dri