ORDER 1. Insurance Company has preferred this appeal against the award dated 24th December, 2005 passed by the 3rd MACT, Khargone (West Nimar) in Claim Case No.5/2004 for the injuries sustained by the respondent. Learned Claims Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.89,000/- towards compensation. 2. Facts in brief leading to this appeal are as under :- Appellant was travelling as a passenger in a Maruti Van owned by her husband and driven by respondent No.3. They were going from Khargone to Nagpur. Near Maharashtra border the vehicle suddenly caught fire and because of which appellant sustained severe burn injuries. She filed a Claim Petition claiming compensation. The Insurance Company contested the claim and it Page No. 2 was submitted that the Maruti Van was being driven by using LPG gas as a fuel for which the necessary permission as required under section 52 of the Motor Vehicle Act was not taken, it was, therefore, an unauthorized use of vehicle. It was also contended that even otherwise nobody travels such a long distance carrying gas cylinder. The carrying of gas cylinder in this manner is not permitted because of the risk involved. It was also contended that Insurance Company was not liable to pay any compensation as there was no pleading of any negligence and proof in support of the Claim Petition filed under section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act. In support of the claim the appellant examined herself and she stated in her evidence that they were carrying gas cylinder for cooking purpose because her husband is a diabetic. 3. In the considered opinion of this Court, it seems to be a very very tall claim, which does not have the virtue of infallibility. Even if a person is diabetic, he would carry with himself the cooked food instead of carrying gas cylinder for cooking purposes. Obviously the contention of the Insurance Company that the LPG gas cylinder was being used as a fuel stand to reason. This is also supported by the evidence of DW 3 Vijay, the Insurance Surveyor. He stated in his evidence that he was a Diploma holder in Mechanical Engineer and after examining the damaged vehicle he has clearly opined that it was being driven on a LPG gas cylinder. This is also supported by the evidence of DW 3 Vijay, the Insurance Surveyor. He stated in his evidence that he was a Diploma holder in Mechanical Engineer and after examining the damaged vehicle he has clearly opined that it was being driven on a LPG gas cylinder. There is nothing on record to show that any permission was taken by the owner before using the gas kit to run the vehicle on LPG gas cylinder. We also find from the record that no negligence of the driver was pleaded or proved so as to fasten vicarious liability on the owner and Insurance Company. In this view of the matter, the appeal preferred by the Insurance Page No. 3 Company deserves to be allowed and is hereby allowed. The impugned award is unsustainable in law and is accordingly set aside. The Insurance Company shall be at liberty to recover the amount, if any, paid by the Insurance Company to the claimant together with interest. 4. Appeal stands allowed. No orders as to costs.