This appeal is preferred against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kasargod in O.P.(MV)No.509 of 1998. It was an application filed for claiming damages. The claimant is a dealer of Bharath Petroleum. On 3.11.1997 while his diesel carried in a tanker lorry was proceeding from Kannur to Kasargod a bus bearing Regn.No.KL-13A-7113 driven by the first respondent in the claim petition dashed against the rear portion of the lorry resulting in loss of 400 litres of diesel and therefore he has claimed a total compensation of Rs.50,000/-. The insurance company would contend that there was no liability or insurance coverage for the 3rd party and the amount claimed is exorbitant. The Tribunal found that the accident took place on account of the negligence of the bus driver and awarded a sum of Rs.36,030/- by way of damages due to the loss of the diesel. It is against that decision, the insurance company has come up in appeal.

2. Learned counsel for the insurance company has raised two contentions, viz., (1) the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to decide the question involved in the case and the remedy for the party is elsewhere. (2) In the absence of a policy taken under the Public Liability Insurance Act, 1991 the claimant cannot file a claim petition against the insurance company. The first question to be considered is regarding the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to entertain the claim. Admittedly, the diesel belonging to the claimant was carried in a tanker lorry. On account of a collision, i.e. a hit from behind by a bus which was insured by the appellant company a hole was made in the tanker which resulted in the leakage of diesel. Learned counsel for the insurance company would contend that under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, the liability is only with respect to damages to any property of a 3rd party. Learned counsel would contend before me that the diesel was carried in the vehicle on account of a contract between the owner of the lorry and the claimant and if there is any loss sustained to the owner of the diesel his cause of action arises under the provisions of the Carriers Act and the insurance company of the bus cannot be liable to pay the same. In order to substantiate that contention learned counsel had relied upon the decisions of the Madras High Court and the Karnataka High Court. He had referred to the decision of the Madras High Court reported in K.Thiagarajan and another v. Thanjavur Co-operative Ltd. and others(1998 ACJ 87) and that of the Karnataka High Court in Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd. v. K.Buden Sab and another (2002 ACJ 139). In both the cases the courts took the view that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction. But the facts of that case would specifically show that the damage was caused on account of the capsizing of the vehicle in which the goods were carried and there was no intervention of a 3rd party to cause damage. The Court was considering the question that there was a contract between the owner of the goods and the owner of the vehicle whereby the owner of the vehicle had undertaken to carry the goods to the destination safely and therefore when there is any breach it is one coming under the provisions of the Carriers Act for which a civil action can lie. But, so far as the case on hand is concerned, the accident had taken place when the bus driven by the driver which was insured by the appellant dashed on the back of the oil tanker resulting in leakage. So the real tortfeasor in the case is the driver of the bus for whose act the owner is vicariously liable and who is liable to be indemnified by the insurance company. So, it has to be stated that damages that is caused to the diesel carried in the tanker lorry which belonged to the claimant was on account of the negligence of the bus driver, who was a 3rd party to the tanker lorry as well as the owner of the goods carried in the tanker lorry and therefore the damage caused to the tanker lorry as well as to the contents in the