1. By this common judgment, this court proposes to dispose of the appeals referred above preferred under section 173 of the M.V. Act, 1988 by which the appellant, National Insurance Co. Ltd., Aizawl (in both the appeals) have challenged the legality and correctness of the judgments and awards dated 19.1.2006 and 20.1.2006 passed in MAC Appeal No. ' 81/04 and 82/04 by which the learned Member, MACT awarded compensation to the tune of Rs. 4, 12, 500 in MAC No. 81/04 and Rs. 4, 36, 500 in MAC No. 82/04 respectively. 2. The facts of the case in brief are that respondent No. 2 herein was the owner of the bike, bearing registration No. MZ-01/C-2091, which had been allowed to be driven by the deceased namely, Ralliankhama and Lalmalsawma on 21.3.2004. On 23.3.2004 the deceased who had taken the said bike from the respondent No. 2, the owner Pu K.Thanthuama were found lying dead in a gorge by the side of National Highway with another, namely, Lalramthanga along with the said bike in damaged condition. Accordingly, the Officer in-charge Bawngkawn Police Station made a G.D. Entry being No. 739 dated 23.3.2004 (Exhibit C/2) in regard to the said accident. Inquest was conducted on the death bodies rjut the Post-mortem examination was exempted on the request of the family members of the deceased. On the death of the deceased except Lalramthanga, the respondent No. 1 in both the appeals filed a claim petition under the provisions of section 163A of the M.V. Act, claiming compensation on the death of the deceased before the learned Member, MACT, Aizawl. On filing of such application, the learned Member made an enquiry in each case and awarded compensation to the claimant/respondent herein as stated above. Feeling aggrieved thereby ; these two appeals have been filed by the National Insurance Co. Ltd., the insurer of the said bike being registration No. MZ-01/C-2091. 3. Miss R. Lalduhawmi, learned counsel for the appellant at the very outset of her argument challenged the legality and correctness of the judgment only on two grounds :- (i) for that there is complete violation of the conditions policy for which this award cannot be sustained, and (ii) for that the award also cannot sustain since there is no proof on the face of the record that the respective deceased earned Rs. 3, 000 p.m. Miss R. Lalduhawmi, therefore, under the above two grounds submits that the learned tribunal failed to consider these two aspects of the matter in its true perspective and accordingly, passed the judgments and awards dated 19.1.2006 and 20.1.2006 in MAC Appeal No. 81/04 and 82/04 respectively erroneously and illegally. 4. Per contra to the submission of Mr. Zochhuana, learned counsel for the respondent No. I/claimant in both the appeals, relying on a case in betweenB. V. Nagaraju v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Divisional Officer Hassan, (1996) 4 SCC 647 submits that when there is no knowledge about the violation of the policy to the owner of the offending vehicle misuse of the same by some other person, there cannot be any fundamental breach for such misuse of the vehicle. In para 7 of the judgment, the hon'ble Supreme Court held as under : - "7. It is plain from the terms of the insurance policy that the insured vehicle was entitled to carry 6 workmen, excluding the driver. If those 6 workmen when travelling in the vehicle, are assumed not to have increased any risk from the point of view of the insurance company on occurring of an accident, how could those added persons be said to have contributed to the causing of it is the poser, keeping apart the load it was carrying. Here, it is nobody's case that the driver of the insured vehicle was responsible for the accident. In fact, it was not disputed that the oncoming vehicle had collided head-on against the insured vehicle, which resulted in the damage. Merely by lifting a person or two, or even three, by the driver or the cleaner of the vehicle, without the knowledge of the owner, cannot be said to be such a fundamental breach that the owner should, in all events, be denied indemnification. The misuse of the vehicle was somewhat irregular though, but not so fundamental in nature so as to put an end to the'contract, unless some factors existed which, by themselves, had gone to contribute to the causing of the accident. In the instant case, however, we find no such contributory factor." 5. Therefore, law is very clear in the context of misuse of a vehicle without the knowledge of the owner of the offending vehicle and in the situation, there can be no denial of indemnification. In the instant case, however, we find no such contributory factor." 5. Therefore, law is very clear in the context of misuse of a vehicle without the knowledge of the owner of the offending vehicle and in the situation, there can be no denial of indemnification. In view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court, I do not see any ground to accept the submission of Miss R. Lalduhawmi, learned counsel for the appellant. 6. In the context of the second issue raised by Miss R. Lalduhawmi that there is no proof on record to show that the deceased earned Rs. 3, 000 p.m cannot legally be challenged at this stage since this aspect was never challenged/agitated before the tribunal. 7. It is found from the perusal of the judgment and award rendered by the learned Member, MACT that the appropriate multiplier and earning of the deceased were taken care of and applied and no error or illegality is found to have been committed. Records do not deserve any interference. 8. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, it cannot be said that there was no vehicular accident on the relevant date, i.e., 23.3.2004. Which did not result death of the deceased who were found lying death in a gorge on 23.3.2004 for which G.D. Entry was made by the Officer in-charge Bawngkawn Police Station. So the argument so advanced by Miss R. Lalduhawmi, learned counsel for the appellant that there was no vehicular accident on the relevant date and the respondents were not entitled to have compensation is not sustainable. 9. Appellant shall pay the compensation with interest as calculated by the learned Member, MACT, to the claimant respondent within one month from the receipt of the judgment and order of this court. 10. Appeals stand dismissed.