JUDGMENT : N.K. Mody, J. This order shall also govern disposal of M.A. Nos. 2630 and 2631 of 2005 as in all the appeals award under challenge is dated 24.6.2005 passed by First M.A.C.T., Mandleshwar, West Nimar. In M.A. No. 2776 of 2005 award passed in Claim Case No. 6 of 2005, whereby claim petition filed by the appellants was allowed and compensation of Rs. 1,87,000 has been awarded on account of death of Radhabai, wife of appellant No. 3, and Prakash. son of appellant No. 3 and brother of appellant Nos. I and 2. In M.A. Nos. 2631 and 2630 of 2005 the award is in Claim Case No. 7 of 2005, whereby compensation awarded is Rs. 1,57,000 on account of injuries sustained by Motiram, appellant No. 3, and in other case appeal is against the award passed in Claim Case No. 6 of 2005 for which appeal for enhancement is M.A. No. 2776 of 2005. 2. Short facts of the case are that claim petitions were filed by the appellants alleging that on 20.6.2004, Motiram, appellant No. 3, was going on his motorbike bearing registration No. MP 09-LD 3385, which was owned by appellant No. 3 and insured with respondent. It was alleged that at that time R.adhabai, wife of appellant No. 3, and Prakash, son of appellant No. 3, were travelling as pillion riders on the said motorbike. It was alleged that when the appellant No. 3 reached a bridge at that time an unknown truck coming from the opposite direction dashed the motorbike with the result motorbike of appellant No. 3 fell in the river. It was alleged that in the said accident Radhabai, wife of appellant No. 3, and Prakash, son of appellant No. 3, aged one year, died and appellant No. 3 sustained grievous injuries. It was alleged that since the offending vehicle owned by appellant No. 3 was insured with respondent, therefore, it was prayed that the claim petitions be allowed and compensation be awarded on account of death of Radhabai and Prakash and the injuries sustained by appellant No. 3. The claim petition was contested by the respondent on various grounds including on the ground that since it was a case of hit and run, therefore, the respondent insurance company is not liable for payment of compensation. It was alleged that the "learned Tribunal had no jurisdiction to entertain the claim petition. The claim petition was contested by the respondent on various grounds including on the ground that since it was a case of hit and run, therefore, the respondent insurance company is not liable for payment of compensation. It was alleged that the "learned Tribunal had no jurisdiction to entertain the claim petition. After framing of issues and recording of evidence the learned Tribunal allowed the clhim petition filed by the appellants and awarded a sum of Rs. 1,57,000 in Claim Case No. 6 of 2005, which was on account of death of Radhabai and awarded a sum of Rs. 1,50,000 in Claim Case No. 7 of 2005 on account of injuries sustained by appellant No. 3. In all the three appeals, two appeals are by respondent, wherein liability is challenged and in one appeal quantum of compensation is challenged. 3. The learned counsel for the appellants submits that in a death case amount awarded by the learned Tribunal is grossly inadequate. It is submitted that appeal be allowed and the amount be enhanced. 4. In other two appeals filed by respondent it is submitted that since the allegation is that the accident occurred because of rash and negligent driving and it is a case of hit and run, therefore, claim petition could have been filed under section 161 of the Motor Vehicles Act before the Collector, Khargone. It is submitted that this aspect of the case has not at all been taken into consideration by the learned Tribunal. Learned counsel further submits that since the appellant No. 3 was the owner of the offending vehicle and was not third party, therefore, appellant No. 3 was not entitled to claim compensation against his own insurance company. Reliance is placed on a decision in the matter of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Sunita Rathi, 1998 ACJ 121 (SC), wherein liability of insurer arises for the purpose of indemnifying the insured under the contract of insurance when the liability of the insured has been upheld. It is submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case appeal filed by the respondent be allowed and the appeal filed by the appellants be dismissed. In the present case, it is appellant No. 3, who was going on the motorbike along with other members of the family, when he met with the accident. It is submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case appeal filed by the respondent be allowed and the appeal filed by the appellants be dismissed. In the present case, it is appellant No. 3, who was going on the motorbike along with other members of the family, when he met with the accident. The motorbike, which was being driven by the appellant No. 3, was insured with the respondent. The policy is on record. In the matter of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Sunita Rathi, 1998 ACJ 121 (SC), wherein the High Court exempted the owner of the vehicle from liability but made the insurer alone liable, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that liability of the insurer arises for the purpose of indemnifying the insured under the contract of insurance when the liability of the insured has been upheld. In this case, while allowing the appeal filed by the insurance company, the Apex Court further directed that claimants are not liable for refund of the amount, which has already been paid to them by the insurer. In the matter of Saroj v. Het Lal, 2011 ACJ 552 (SC), wherein truck hit a motor cycle from behind resulting in death of motorcyclist and in the claim case it was found that it was a hit and run case and dismissed the claim petition, it was held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that claimants are entitled to Rs. 25,000 in a hit and run case. In the matter of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Vidya Devi, 2005 ACJ 2105 (HP), wherein no particulars of truck, driver, owner and the insurance company were given, Himachal Pradesh High Court held that Tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain the claim case in a hit and run case. In the matter of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Rajendra Prasad Bhatt, 2002 ACJ 1762 (MP), this High Court held that in a hit and run motor accident Claims Tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain the application for compensation and the claim has to be filed before the Claims Enquiry Officer of the Sub-Division in which the accident has taken place. 5. In the present case, the claim petition was filed by the appellants. The offending motorbike was being driven by appellant No. 3. 5. In the present case, the claim petition was filed by the appellants. The offending motorbike was being driven by appellant No. 3. The truck, which has caused the injuries and also the death of wife and son of appellant No. 3, was not known. In the facts and circumstances of the case since appellant No. 3 was not liable for the accident, therefore, there was no justification on the part of the learned Tribunal to hold the respondent liable for payment of compensation. In the facts and circumstances of the case appeal filed by appellants has no merits and the same stands dismissed and the appeal filed by the respondent stands allowed and the impugned award is set aside. However, it is made clear that the appellants are not liable to refund the amount, which has already been received by the appellants. The amount, which has not been withdrawn by the appellants, shall be paid to the insurance company. 6. With the aforesaid observations both the appeals stand disposed of. Let a copy of this order be placed in the record of all the connected cases.