Judgment Rakesh Kumar Garg, J. 1. This is insurers appeal challenging the impugned award whereby the claimant/respondent No. 1 has been awarded compensation on account of injuries suffered by him in a motor vehicular accident involving motorcycle bearing No. PB-58-3274 insured by the appellant. 2. The impugned award has been challenged on the ground that the insurer was not liable to indemnify the owner qua the liability fastened upon it, as there was no tort feasor in this case because admittedly Kamal Kumar has borrowed the motorcycle from its owner and was himself driving the vehicle at the time of accident. In support of his case, learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance upon (i) Oriental Insurance Company Limited v. Rajni Devi and others, 2008 (4) RCR (Civil) 905 : 2008 (6) RAJ 396 : (2008) 5 SCC 736, (ii) Ningamma & another v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., 200 9(3) RCR (Civil) 435 : 2009 (2) AICJ 128 : 2009 (4) RAJ 164 : JT 2009 (8) SC 262 and (iii) New India Assurance Company Limited v. Sadanand Mukhi and others, 2009 (1) RCR (Civil) 817 : 2009 (1) RAJ 472 : 2009 (1) AICJ 602 : (2009) 2 Supreme Court Cases 417. 3. There is no dispute with regard to the proposition of law as laid down by the aforesaid judgments. However, from the perusal of the impugned award, I find that the aforesaid contention which is raised before this court was not advanced by the appellant before the learned Tribunal. Even no such defence was taken up by the appellant-company before the learned Tribunal. Thus, I find no merit in this contention and the same is rejected. 4. Faced with this situation, learned counsel for the appellant has argued that in this case the claim petition was decided under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988. However, the structured formula as per schedule of the Act has not been adhered to while assessing the quantum of compensation. Again the contention raised by learned counsel for the appellant is without any merit as no such ground to challenge the impugned award on the question of quantum is available to the appellant-company as envisaged under Section 149 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988. 5. No other point was urged. No merit. Dismissed.