JUDGMENT : Heard Mr. Lalfakawma learned counsel for the appellant in MAC.APP No.34 of 2017 and MAC.APP No.35 of 2017 and also heard Mr. Lalchhanliana Khiangte, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1/claimant, Mr. L.H. Lianhrima, learned Sr. Counsel for the respondent No.2 and Mr. F. Lalengliana, learned counsel for the respondent No.3 who are all appearing for both the respective respondents in both the cases MAC.APP No.34 of 2017 and MAC.APP No.35 of 2017. 2. The 2(two) appeals are disposed by a Common Order. 3. This is an appeal filed by the appellant under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 challenging the Judgment and Award dated 28.06.2017 passed by the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Aizawl, in MACT Case No. 19 of 2012 whereby the instant appellant has been directed to pay the respondent No. 1/Claimant compensation for an amount of Rs.5,66,000/-(Rupees Five Lakhs Sixty Six Thousand only) with an interest calculated @ 9% per annum from the date of filing the MACT No.19 of 2012 i.e. 29.03.2012 till realization in full. 4. The brief facts leading to filing of this appeal is that 0n 13.10.2009 morning, one vehicle (Tata Sumo) bearing registration number MZ-01-C-8259 belonging to the respondent No. 2 while proceeding from Aizawl to Phuldungsei met with an accident near Dapchhuah Village, Mamit District, Mizoram, by rolling down off the cliffs. That due to the said accident, the driver of the accident vehicle Mr. Vanlalhlua, S/o Zohmingthanga, one Mr. Lalhuliana, H/o of Lalseli (Claimant) and one Mr. Lalrinngheta, S/o Lalrinsiama died on the spot. 5. The respondent No. 1/Claimant then approached the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Aizawl on 29.03.2012 under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988. The Ld. Presiding Officer, Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Aizawl passed its Judgment and Award dated 10.12.2014 whereby the Appellant/Opposite Party No. 2 was directed to pay compensation to the respondent No. 1/Claimant for an amount of Rs.3,20,000/-(Rupees Three Lakhs Twenty Thousand only) with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing i.e. 29.3.2012 within one month from the date of the Judgment by deciding the issues (i) Whether the claim application is maintainable in its present form and style (ii) whether the claimant is entitled to get compensation and if so, who is liable and to what extend, in favour of the claimant. 6. 6. Being aggrieved by the said Judgment and Award dated 10.12.2014 passed by the Ld. Member-cum-Presiding Officer, Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Aizawl in MACT Case No. 19 of 2012, the Appellant had preferred MAC Appeal which was registered as MAC Appeal No. 7 of 2015. That this Court passed a common Judgment and Order dated 09.02.2016 in MAC Appeal No. 6 of 2015 and MAC Appeal No. 7 of 2015 wherein the case was remanded back to the Ld. Member-cum-Presiding Officer, Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Aizawl with a direction to adjudicate on the two (2) additional issues : “(i) Whether purported policy of insurance number 121400/31/09/0000108 indicating coverage for the period 07.08.2009 to 06.08.2010, filed by the claimant was issued by the OP No.2, Insurance Co. or an Agent of the Insurance Co. (ii) whether the OP No.2 would be liable under the same purported policy of insurance to provide coverage as indicated in it” framed by the learned tribunal in its Order dated 14.08.2013 and also to adduce additional evidences, if required. Thereafter the Ld. Tribunal on 29.05.2017 after hearing the parties passed its Judgment and Award dated 28.06.2017 whereby the learned tribunal held that the Insurance policy Exhibited as Ext C-17 is a valid Insurance policy covering the date of the accident i.e. 13.10.2009 and also held that since the Insurance Policy was issued by the corporate agent i.e., TATA Motors Ltd., the Insurance Company is vicariously liable for the acts of its agent and instant Appellant was held liable for payment of Rs.5,66,000/-(Rupees Five Lakhs Sixty Six Thousand only) with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing the MACT Case No. 19 of 2012 i.e. 29.03.2012.Being aggrieved by the said Judgment and Award dated 28.06.2017, the Appellant has filed the instant MAC Appeals. 7. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the learned Tribunal committed an error in law and on facts in relying upon the insurance policy produced by the Respondent No.2. The learned Tribunal failed to appreciate the fact that No.121400031090100001081 which the Respondent No.2/Opposite party no. 1 claims to be the insurance policy to have been issued to him was actually issued to one Mr. Sudhir Sharma against one Maruti 800 vehicle bearing registration no.RJ-14-3C-1297. The learned Tribunal failed to appreciate the fact that No.121400031090100001081 which the Respondent No.2/Opposite party no. 1 claims to be the insurance policy to have been issued to him was actually issued to one Mr. Sudhir Sharma against one Maruti 800 vehicle bearing registration no.RJ-14-3C-1297. That insurance policy of the Respondent No. 2 covering 2009 to 2010 and that of one Sudhir Sharma are the same expect for the oblique between the numbers in the insurance policy belonging to Sudhir Sharma, which is due to the fact that a new form was used by the Insurance Company during this period onwards. That perusal of the insurance policies submitted by the Respondent No. 2/Opposite Party No.1 would reveal that insurance policies submitted by him for the years covering 2007 to 2008, 2008 to 2009, and 2009 to 2010 had all been issued on the same date, month, time and even second except for the year and are having the same number while policy number changes every year and no two policies issued by their company have the same number. That the date of issue of the exhibited insurance policy (Ext D-3) falls on a Sunday but they do not work on Saturdays and Sundays. That exhibited insurance policies shows the Insured Declared Value (I.D.V.) as Rs.3,85,000/- while I.D.V. which should fall every year because of depreciation as per Tariff Advisory Committee norms. 8. That the learned counsel further submitted that Ld. Tribunal erred in law in as much as the instant Appellant cannot be held vicariously liable for the illegal acts of its agents. That as an agent of the Appellant, the Respondent no. 3 collects premium only and are not allowed to issue any insurance policy themselves. That the learned tribunal had added awards under the conventional head, which are not reflected in the 2nd Schedule of M.V Act, 1988 while the claimant had made the claim under section 163-A of the Act. In support of his submissions the learned counsel for the appellant has relied on the judgments in Sitaram Motilal Kala vs. Santanu Prasad Jaishankar Bhatt (1966) 3 SCR 527 : AIR 1966 SC 1697 , Pushpabai Purshottam Udeshi and others vs. M/s. Ranjit Ginning & Pressing CO. ( P) LTD (1977) 2 SCC 745 , Manager-Claims, Tata AIG General Insurance Company Limited, vs. Chaneerappa and other Civil Misc. ( P) LTD (1977) 2 SCC 745 , Manager-Claims, Tata AIG General Insurance Company Limited, vs. Chaneerappa and other Civil Misc. Appeal No. 2920 of 2017 In the High Court of Judicature at Madras. 9. The Learned counsel for respondent No. 1/claimant has submitted that if the Insurance Policy is found to be faked then no FIR has been filed by the Insurance Company and the TATA MOTORS LTD till date. He has further submitted that even though he had made his claim for payment under section 163 M.V Act, the learned tribunal can pass an award under conventional heads which are not in the 2ndSchedule of the M.V Act and relied on the Judgment and order of this court in MAC APP. No.17 of 2017 dated 17.11.2017. 10. The learned Sr. Counsel for respondent No.2/owner of the vehicle has submitted that he is a simple man and all that he knows is that he had purchased the vehicle Motor Maxi Cap (TATA Sumo SE) MZ-01 C 8259 from TATA MOTORS LTD in 2005 and the TATA MOTORS LTD issued him the insurance policy under the New India Assurance Ltd. That he has been paying them money for renewal every year till the date of accident i.e. 13.10.2009 and they renewed the policy for him. He do not know the name of the person who received the premium and arranged the policy issued by New India Assurance Co. Ltd., but it was done at the Tata Motors office. That the TATA MOTORS LTD have not issued out any receipt since a renewed Insurance Policy is automatically considered as a receipt. That till date no FIR has been submitted by the New India Assurance Co. Ltd. or the TATA MOTORS LTD, which they should be doing if the Insurance Policy was fake as claimed by them. 11. The Learned Counsel for the Respondent No.3 on the other hand has submitted that they has issued the Insurance Policy only for the period 2007 to 2008 which is exhibited as Ext–D-2 and which is a genuine Insurance Policy and do not know about the Issuance of the Policy for the period 2008 to 2009 and 2009 to 2010 exhibited as Ext-D-3, and Ext–C-17 respectively. He also submits that the insurance policies exhibited as Ext–D-3, and Ext–C-17 appear fake considering that the Policy Numbers, the date of issuance and the amount of Insured Declared Value (I.D.V.) which is Rs.3,85,000/- for the years 2008 to 2009, and 2009 to 2010 when the amount should be decreasing. He submits that the Insurance Policy produced by the owner of the Vehicle/Respondent No.2 appears to be tampered with. He has however admitted that the seal used in the Insurance Policy for the years 2008 to 2009, and 2009 to 2010 is that of the TATA MOTORS LTD. The learned counsel further submitted that the contract tenure of the particular loan agreement was from 05.08.2005 to 02.07.2008 i.e for three years and the loan agreement got closed and was terminated on 16.03.2009. The contract termination letter was also handed over to the owner of the vehicle/Respondent No.2. That the reason why no FIR was filed was because when the fake policy was detected the matter was already pending in the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. That the owner of the vehicle/respondent 2 is liable to pay the compensation to the respondent 1/claimant. 12. Having considered the submissions made by both the parties and on careful peruse of the photo copy of the documents i.e., insurance policies produced for the years covering 2007 to 2008, 2008 to 2009, and 2009 to 2010 exhibited as Ext–D-2, Ext D-3 and Ext C-17 respectively this court finds that the points that emerges for decision are : (i) whether the Insurance Policy for the period 2009 to 2010 exhibited as Ext C-17 covering the date of the accident on 13.10.2009 is fake or not. (ii) whether the appellant Insurance Company was rightly held vicariously liable for the acts of its agent i.e. TATA MOTORS Ltd by the learned tribunal. (iii) whether the conventional head, which are not reflected in the 2nd Schedule of M.V Act, 1988, can be awarded to the claimant, who has made the claim under section 163-A of the Act. 13. It is seen that the witness for the New India Insurance Company Mr. K. Chuodhary who is the Senior Assistant at New India Assurance Co. has lucidly pointed out how that the insurance policy exhibited for the period covering 2008 to 2009 exhibited as Ext D-2 and, and 2009 to 2010 exhibited as Ext-C-17 are faked and fabricated documents. 13. It is seen that the witness for the New India Insurance Company Mr. K. Chuodhary who is the Senior Assistant at New India Assurance Co. has lucidly pointed out how that the insurance policy exhibited for the period covering 2008 to 2009 exhibited as Ext D-2 and, and 2009 to 2010 exhibited as Ext-C-17 are faked and fabricated documents. On comparison of the insurance policies with authentic insurance policy for the period 2007 to 2008 exhibited as Ext–D-2. He had pointed out that the policy numbers of the exhibited insurance policies for the years 2007 to 2008, 2008 to 2009, and 2009 to 2010 exhibited as Ext–D-2, Ext D-3 and Ext C-17 are the same except for the years and deposed that : “(i) policy number changes every year and no two policies issued by our company have the same number. Policies issued in different years cannot have the same number. (iii) the date of issue of Ext D-3 falls on a Sunday and could not have been issued by us as we do not work on Saturdays and Sundays. (iv) Ext. D-3 shows the Insured Declared Value (I.D.V.) as Rs.3,85,000/-which is the same as the I.D.V. shown in Ext. D-2. However, I.D.V. should fall every year because of depreciation. This is as per Tariff Advisory Committee norms.” He further asserted that the insurance policy bearing No.121400031090100001081 which the Respondent No.2/owner of the vehicle 2009 to 2010 exhibited as Ext-C-17 claimed to have been issued to him was found actually issued to one Mr. Sudhir Sharma against one Maruti 800 vehicle bearing registration no.RJ-14-3C-1297. 14. The above points were not refuted by the respondent No2/ owner of the vehicle nor by respondent No.3/TATA Motors Ltd, however both the respondents claim ignorance and disclaimed responsibility for the insurance policies for the periods covering 2008 to 2009, and 2009 to 2010 exhibited as Ext D-3 and Ext C-17. The owner of the accident vehicle/respondent No.2 has deposed that it was issued to him by the agent, TATA MOTORS Ltd./respondent N0.3 from whom he bought the vehicle and he been paying them money for renewal every year till the date of accident i.e. 13.10.2009 whereby they renewed the policy for him. On the other the witness deposing for the TATA MOTORS Ltd. Mr. Sabyasachi DATTA who is the Area Legal Manager reiterates what was stated by the Appellant Insurance Co. On the other the witness deposing for the TATA MOTORS Ltd. Mr. Sabyasachi DATTA who is the Area Legal Manager reiterates what was stated by the Appellant Insurance Co. that the insurance policies exhibited as Ext–D-3, and Ext–C-17 appear fake considering that the Policy Numbers, the date of issuance and the amount of Insured Declared Value (I.D.V.) for the years covering 2008 to 2009, and 2009 to 2010 are the same when the amount should be decreasing. He submits that the Insurance Policy produced by the owner of the Vehicle/Respondent No.2 appears to be tampered with and mentions that the contract tenure of the particular loan agreement was from 05.08.2005 to 02.07.2008 i.e. for three years and the loan agreement got closed and was terminated on 16.03.2009 and contract termination letter was accordingly given to the owner of the vehicle Respondent No.2. 15. In light of the above, this court is of the considered view that there is ample evidence that establishes that the Insurance policy exhibited for years covering 2008 to 2009, and 2009 to 2010 exhibited as Ext D-3 and Ext-C-17 respectively are faked and fabricated documents. 16. On coming to the finding that the Insurance policy is found to be faked, there is no evidence that indicates that Appellant Insurance Company had authorized its agent TATA MOTORS Ltd. to issue the fake insurance policy. Moreover the agent, TATA MOTORS Ltd./ respondent No.3 has vehemently denied issuance of the fake Insurance Policy, thus, I do not find any reason to hold the Insurance Company vicariously liable for the alleged act of its agents i.e. Respondent No.3/TATA Motors Ltd. The issue on whether the appellant can be held liable on applying the principal of vicarious liability has been aptly answered by this court in the common Judgment and Order dated 09.02.2016 in MAC Appeal No. 6 of 2015 and MAC Appeal No.7 of 2015 where it held that para 10 “The question of vicarious liability of a principle with regard to the act of an agent will apply only when the agent acts in the course of business or employment of the principle. Illegal act of an agent beyond the scope of business/employment of the principle cannot bind the principle.” The Hon’ble Apex court in Sitaram Motilal Kala v. Santanuprasad Jaishankar Bhatt (supra) has also held that: “The law is settled that master is vicariously liable for the acts of his servants acting in the course of his employment. Unless the act is done in the course of employment, the servant's act does not make the employer liable. In other words, for the master's liability to arise, the act must be a wrongful act authorised by the master or a wrongful and unauthorised mode of doing some act authorised by the master.” 17. For the above reasons, this Court has no hesitation to hold that the Appellant Insurance Company cannot be held vicariously liable for the act (if any) of the TATA MOTORS Ltd./respondent N0.3 in the instant case. 18. In view of the above, the findings of the learned Tribunal on the aspect of genuineness of the insurance policy (exhibit-Ext D-3 and Ext-C-17) and the liability of the Appellant to pay the compensation determined in the impugned judgment and award dated 28.06.2018 in MACT No.18 of 2012 and MACT No.19 of 2012 are both set aside. 19. With regards to the issue that when an application is filed under section 163-AMV. Act whether the learned tribunal can pass an award under conventional heads which are not in the 2nd Schedule of the M.V. Act, this court in MAC APP. No.17 of 2017 dated 17.11.2017 has dealt with the matter wherein relying upon the case of R.K. Malik & Another v. Kiran Pal & Ors. reported in 2009 (3) TAC 1 (SC), where the Apex Court held that denying compensation towards future prospects seems unjustified and accordingly the Apex Court had awarded compensation for future prospects on a claim made under Section 163-A of the M.V Act and also held that there is no infirmity in the High Court granting Rs. 75,000/-for non-pecuniary damages this court had allowed an award under conventional heads which are not in the 2nd Schedule of the M.V Act in an application is filed under section 163-AMV Act, 1988. I thus do not find it necessary to discuss the matter any further since this issue is a covered therein. 20. 75,000/-for non-pecuniary damages this court had allowed an award under conventional heads which are not in the 2nd Schedule of the M.V Act in an application is filed under section 163-AMV Act, 1988. I thus do not find it necessary to discuss the matter any further since this issue is a covered therein. 20. However even in the event of the Appellant Insurance Company being exonerated, the claimants are required to be compensated for the loss suffered due to the accident of the vehicle. 21. For the above reasons the matter is yet again remanded back to the learned Tribunal for determining whether the owner of the vehicle or whether the TATA Insurance Company Ltd. is liable to pay the compensation to the claimant who has been made to wait and suffer unduly for the wrong of others. The learned Tribunal shall give an opportunity to both, the owner of the vehicle and the TATA MOTORS Ltd. for adducing additional evidence in support of their respective contentions of disclaiming responsibility for the fake insurance policies duly exhibited before the Tribunal. The Learned tribunal is to proceed with the MACT case No.18 of 2012 and MACT case No.19 of 2012 for their expeditious disposal preferably within 2 (two) months from the date of this order. 22. With above observation and direction, both the appeals MAC.APP No.34 of 2017 and MAC.APP No.35 of 2017 in stands allowed and disposed of. 23. Statutory deposit of Rs.25,000/- each in the cases to this Registry by the appellant may be released.