Judgment : Claimants in MVC.Nos.74, 154, 155, 156 and 169/2011 on the file of MACT, Channarayapatna have come up in these appeals seeking modification of the common judgment and award dated 22.6.2011, wherein the claim petitions filed by claimants seeking compensation for the injuries suffered in road traffic accident dated 1.1.2008 involving autorickshaw bearing registration No.KA13/A.341 are allowed and liability to pay compensation is saddled on the first respondent in said common judgment, who is the owner of aforesaid autorickshaw. Though these appeals have come up for admission, since lower court record is received, at the request of counsel for parties, they are taken up for final disposal. 2. Admittedly, as on the date of accident the driver of offending autorickshaw was not having valid driving licence to drive the same. In that view of the matter, the tribunal while fastening the liability to pay compensation has decided to saddle the same on the owner of autorickshaw. The claimants being aggrieved by the same have come up in these five appeals seeking modification of the aforesaid judgment and award, seeking to shift the liability to pay compensation on insurance company and also for enhancement of compensation. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the judgment impugned, pleadings, oral and documentary evidence available on record with reference to lower court record. On going through the same, it is seen that admittedly, the liability of insurance company is based on contractual obligation between the owner and insurer of vehicle, wherein insurer agrees and undertakes to indemnify the liability of owner provided, he complies with all the obligations in the policy issued and one of that is entrusting the vehicle to a person having valid driving licence. When once the owner has failed to adhere to the terms and conditions and when he allows there to be breach in the terms and conditions between himself and insurerindemnifier, then he loses his right to seek indemnification from the insurance company. 4. Now coming to the right of claimants is concerned, primarily the right of claimants to seek compensation is against the tort feasor, namely driver of autorickshaw, who caused the accident. Since the autorickshaw was entrusted to the driver by its registered owner, he is vicariously liable to answer the claim. 4. Now coming to the right of claimants is concerned, primarily the right of claimants to seek compensation is against the tort feasor, namely driver of autorickshaw, who caused the accident. Since the autorickshaw was entrusted to the driver by its registered owner, he is vicariously liable to answer the claim. In that view of the matter, first respondent before the tribunal, who is the owner of autorickshaw is answerable to the claimants. He can only seek indemnification of said obligation from the insurance company provided, he has adhered to the policy conditions. In the absence of the same, question of shifting liability on insurance company either with an observation that insurance company should pay compensation and thereafter to recover from the owner is not permissible. This Court has absolutely no right of whatsoever nature under any statutory law to fasten such liability on insurance company when admittedly the insurance company has no obligation to indemnify the liability of owner. Therefore, this Court has no right to direct the insurance company to pay compensation and to direct the insurer to litigate against the owner to recover the same. In that view of the matter, this Court find that no justifiable grounds are made out to consider these five appeals filed by the claimants seeking to shift the liability to pay compensation on the insurer of offending vehicle. 5. So far as enhancement of compensation is concerned, on going through the common judgment and award, it is seen that the tribunal on proper appreciation of material on record has rightly awarded compensation to each of the claimants. In that view of the matter, interference with the same is not called for. Accordingly, these five appeals are dismissed.