Abdul Rehim, J.

1. Claimant in OP(MV) No:490/96 on the files of the Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal, Perumbavoor is the appellant herein. The accident occurred on 1.1.1996 when a motorcycle bearing Regn.No: KL-5/C-8633 driven by the 1st respondent hit against the motor cycle In which the appellant/claimant was riding. The 2nd respondent is the owner and 3rd respondent is the insurer of the motor cycle bearing Regn.No:KL-5/C-8633.The 1st respondent remained exparte before the Tribunal. The 2nd respondent contended that the motorcycle in question belongs to him, but it was missing from Palai since 20.12.1995 as stolen by somebody. It is stated that only on getting information that the vehicle was involved in an accident at Perumbavoor and the police authorities had taken it into custody, he came to know about the motor cycle lost from his custody. It is further submitted that with respect to theft of the vehicle a criminal case had already been registered at Palai Police station as Crime No:512/1996. The 2nd respondent admitted that the vehicle stands insured with the 3rd respondent. But he contended that the 1st respondent was not authorised to drive the vehicle, and in fact be flew from the scene of occurrence on causing the accident.

2. The 3rd respondent Insurance Company denied their liability on the ground that since the person who was riding the motorcycle was not authorised by the 2nd respondent, there is no vicarious liability on the part of the 2nd respondent, which the 3rd respondent is liable to be indemnified. The 3rdrespondent also disputed the claim for compensation made under different heads as excessive and exorbitant.

3. On the basis of the documentary evidence relating to the criminal case registered in connection with the accident, the Tribunal found that the 1st respondent is negligent in causing the accident. But holding that the offending vehicle was not under the custody or control of the 2nd respondent registered owner and the 1st respondent was not a servant or authorised person of the 2nd respondent, the Tribunal found the 2nd respondent as not liable to pay the compensation. The 3rd respondent being the insurer is therefore held as not liable since they are not bound to indemnify the 2nd respondent. The learned tribunal relied on the judgment reported in New India Assurance Co.Ltd. Vs. selvarajamani and others (1998 ACJ 547) in support of the above findings. The Tribunal found that the claimant is entitled for a total compensation of Rs.33,069/-. But the 1st respondent alone was held liable to make payment of the said amount. In this appeal the challenge is against exoneration of the 3rd respondent from the liability. The appellant is also seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

4. While considering the question regarding the liability of the insurer to compensate death or bodily injury of third party involved in a motor accident, the first question to be noticed is as to whether the insurer is liable to indemnify the insured . In this case the contention of the 3rd respondent that since the use of the vehicle was without knowledge or content of the owner insured and hence the insured has no vicarious liability with respect to the negligent act of the unauthorized person. But the fact remains that the vehicle in question is covered by a policy issued by the 3rd respondent, at the time of accident. Therefore it is necessary to look into he statutory obligation of the insured as provided under section 147(5) of the Motor vehicles Act. There is a statutory

obligation cast upon the insurer to indemnify the persons or class of persons specified in the policy in respect of any liability which the policy purports to cover. As per the statutory liability the policy covers injuries sustained to 3rd parties. Under Section 149 of the Act the insurer of the vehicle is liable to the award of compensation to the person who is entitled to the statutory benefit of compensation. The