Both these appeals arise from the judgment, dated 20.09.2013 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bangalore in M.V.C.No.2528/2011.

2. M.V.C.No.10685/2013 is filed by the Insurance Company on the ground that it cannot be made liable to pay the compensation, as the accident is caused by somebody, who had stolen the motor cycle. M.F.A.No.878/2014 is filed by the claimant seeking the enhancement of compensation.

3. The Tribunal has awarded Rs.1,35,685/, the breakup of which is as follows:

Sl.No. Amt. (Rs.)

1. Loss of future income due to disability 43,74000

2. Loss of amenities in life, happiness & frustration 15,00000

3. For conveyance, attendant charges, food and nourishment 10,00000

4. Pain and suffering 35,00000

5. Loss of income during laid up period 18,00000

6. Medical expenses 13,94500

Total 1,35,68500

4. Sri O.Mahesh, the learned counsel for the appellant Insurance Company in M.F.A.No.10685/2013 submits that it is not in dispute that the motor cycle in question was stolen from its owner. When the owner himself is not liable for what the thief has done, the Insurance Company also cannot be held liable. He submits that as per Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the driver is to be made a party to the claim proceedings before the Tribunal. The police have filed the ‘C’ report in the criminal case. He submits that under these circumstances, the claimant’s remedy would be only to claim the compensation treating the accident as hit and run case as provided under Section 163 of the said Act.

5. He submits that under Rule 235 of the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 the Tribunal has to put both the owner and the driver of the vehicle on notice. In the absence of the tortfeasor (rider of the motor cycle), the claim petition ought to have been rejected. He submits that there are glaring selfcontradictions and inconsistencies in the police documents. Some documents state that the vehicle was left on the spot, other documents show something else. He submits that the mahazar witness is not even examined before the Tribunal. He also complains of the delay in getting the vehicle inspected and assessed for damages.

6. He relies on the Apex Court’s judgment in the case of SITARAM MOTILAL KALAL v. SANTANUPRASAD JAISHANKAR BHATT reported in 1966 AIR 1697, wherein it is held that for the master's liability to arise, the act must be a wrongful act authorised by the master or a wrongful and unauthorised mode of doing some act authorised by the master.

The portion read out by him from the said decision reads as follows:

“The law is settled that master is vicariously liable for the acts of his servants acting in the course of his employment. Unless the act is done in the course of employment, the servant's act does not make the employer liable. In other words, for the master's liability to arise, the act must be a wrongful act authorised by the master or a wrongful and unauthorised mode of doing some act authorised by the master. The driver of a car taking the car on the master's business makes him vicariously liable if be commits an accident. But it is equally wellsettled that if the servant, at the time of the accident, is not acting within the course of his employment but is doing something for himself the master is not liable. There is a presumption that a vehicle is driven on the master's, business and by his authorised agent or servant but the presumption can be met. It was negatived in this case, because the vehicle was proved to be driven by an unauthorised person and on his own business. The de facto driver was not the driver or the agent of the owner but one who had obtained the car for his own business not even from the master but from a servant of the master. Prima facie, the owner would not be liable in such circumstances.”

7. Sri K.T.Gurudeva Prasad, the learned counsel for the first respondent claimant in M.F.A.No.10685/2013 submits that the breach of terms of the policy is not germane in case