CHANDRAKANTARAJ URS, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal is by the owner of the motor vehicle bearing registration mark MEN 5551. The said motor vehicle is a truck. ( 2 ) ON 23-6-1985 at about 9-30 A. M. on Joida-Kumarwada road near the Toll bridge, due to rash and negligent driving of the drivers of both the vehicles, i. e. , another vehicle bearing registration mark MEF 9780 belonging to the karnataka State Road Transport Corporation, (the Corporation for short), a collision took place resulting in serious injury to the claimant tulasidas, respondent-1 herein. He, therefore, preferred a petition under Section 110a of the motor Vehicles Act in M. V. C. No. 228 of 1985 in the Accidents Claims Tribunal, Uttara Kan- nada. The claim was resisted by the respondents viz. , the present appellant, the driver and the New india Insurance Company, the insurer as well as the driver of the other motor vehicle involved in the accident belonging to the Corporation and the Corporation itself together with the Internal insurance Fund administered by the said Corporation. Respondents 7 and 8 were added as the purchasers of the truck. ( 3 ) IT suffices to state that each of the respondents pleaded defence in a particular fashion. The appellant and his driver claimed no responsibility as there was no fault on their part for the accident. ( 4 ) THE Corporation similarly pleaded that its driver was not responsible for the accident nor was he negligent. ( 5 ) THE Insurance Company pleaded that it had not issued any policy to the appellant-owner of the truck. ( 6 ) ON appreciating the oral evidence placed before the Court, the learned District Judge, Accidents Claims Tribunal came to the conclusion having regard to the fact that it was the truck-driver who was negligent and who brought about the accident; that the claimant was the passenger in the KSRTC bus bearing registration mark mef 9780 and that he had sustained injuries; that once the negligence on the part of the truck-driver was established, the owner was liable. Having regard to Section 92a of the Motor vehicles Act, the passenger being third party visa-vis owner of the truck the owner became liable to pay the compensation for the injuries as the vehicle in question viz. , the truck which was not covered by any insurance policy. Having regard to Section 92a of the Motor vehicles Act, the passenger being third party visa-vis owner of the truck the owner became liable to pay the compensation for the injuries as the vehicle in question viz. , the truck which was not covered by any insurance policy. The liability has been fastened the owner. ( 7 ) BEFORE us earlier it was contended that indeed the vehicle was covered by a policy and the policy could not be produced at the proper time due to the fact that the Insurance Company was not co-operating and that they had shifted their office and therefore it was not easily available. We gave time on more than one occasion for production of the said policy. Nothing has been forthcoming. ( 8 ) IN the absence of coverage against the third party risk, the owner is bound to pay on account of the vicarious liability for the negligence of his employee, the driver. ( 9 ) HOWEVER, the learned counsel for the appellant pointed out that at least liability should have been foisted on the owner of the other vehicle viz. , the Corporation as according to him, the accident occurred on account of the negligence on the part of both the drivers of the vehicles. We have already pointed out that the accident occurred on account of the negligent driving of the driver of the truck, and not the bus-driver. Therefore, there is no substance in the argument. ( 10 ) THERE is no merit in this appeal. In the result we reject the same. Appeal rejected. --- *** --- .