JUDGMENT : (Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, challenging the fair and decreetal order dated 10.01.2018, made in M.C.O.P.No.2780 of 2014 by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Special Sub Court), Dharmapuri.) 1. This appeal is filed by the Insurance Company challenging the liability and quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal in M.C.O.P.No.2780 of 2014 dated 10.01.2018. 2. The appellant is the Insurance Company, first respondent is claimant and second respondent is owner of the offending vehicle. The first respondent filed claim petition in M.C.O.P.No.2780 of 2014 seeking compensation of Rs.15,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by him in the accident. 3. According to the first respondent/claimant on 05.08.2012, at about 9.15 p.m. when the first respondent riding the two wheeler bearing Reg.No.TN 29 AM 1415 at request of his employer the second respondent to buy diesel, in the Palacode Krishnagiri Main Road, Bypass Road, near Krishna Cement Shop, due to the over light from the head light of the vehicle came from opposite direction, the claimant dashed the two wheeler against Hoganakkal Integrated Drinking Water Project pipeline and sustained grievous injuries. 4. The claim petition was contested by the appellant/Insurance company, which filed a detailed counter denying all the allegations in the claim petition apart from disputing the negligence, quantum and liability. 5. Before the claims Tribunal, the claimant was examined as P.W.1 and Exs.P1 to P16 were marked in support of the claim. On the side of the appellant/Insurance Company, R.W.1 to R.W.3 were examined and Ex.R1 to Ex.R5 were marked. 6. The claims Tribunal, on an assessment of the entire evidence on record, fixed the liablity on the appellant/Insurance Company and awarded a sum of Rs.18,12,800/- as compensation along with 7.5% interest and since there was violation of policy condition ordered pay and recovery. Questioning the liability and challenging the quantum of compensation, the Insurance Company has filed the present appeal before this Court. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant/Insurance Company would submit that the accident took place on 05.08.2012, whereas the FIR was registered only on 28.07.2014, after the lapse of two years and the claimant has not stated that he had driven the vehicle and the accident had occurred during the course employment and the claimant was working for the owner of the vehicle viz. the second respondent. the second respondent. Further at the time of accident the claimant did not possess valid driving license to drive the two wheeler, insured with the appellant and the accident had occurred only due to the negligence of the claimant. 7.1. Further the learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the Accident Register of the claimant clearly shows that the claimant, at the time of accident, was under the influence of the alcohol and hence on his own negligence, the accident had occurred. Hence once the rider of the vehicle, at the time of accident, did not possess valid driving license and was under the influence of alcohol, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation, due to violation of policy conditions. Even though the Tribunal accepted the above facts, but erroneously ordered for pay and recovery and hence the appellant is not liable to pay the compensation and the appellant/Insurance Company has to be exonerated from the liability. 8. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent/claimant would submit that the claimant was working under the second respondent to maintain his land and Tractor. On the date of occurrence i.e. on 05.08.2012, the second respondent asked the claimant to buy diesel and hence he took the two wheeler owned by the second respondent, insured with the appellant. The claimant, keeping the 10 liters can on the vehicle, was riding the two wheeler on the Palacode Dharmapuri Main Road near Krishna Cement Shop, due to the over light emitted in the vehicle came from opposite direction, hit against the water pipe and sustained grievous injuries all over the body and immediately he was admitted in the Government Hospital, Dharmapuri and thereafter admitted in the Government Hospital, Chennai, as inpatient for further treatment, where the claimant undergone surgery and further took treatment in M.N.Hospital. After discharge from the Hospital, on 28.07.2014 the claimant lodged the complaint. The claimant, during the employment under the second respondent took the vehicle of the second respondent and met with accident, due to which, he suffered permanent disability. The appellant, who is the insurer of the said vehicle is liable to indemnify the loss caused by the owner of the offending vehicle. The claimant, during the employment under the second respondent took the vehicle of the second respondent and met with accident, due to which, he suffered permanent disability. The appellant, who is the insurer of the said vehicle is liable to indemnify the loss caused by the owner of the offending vehicle. The Tribunal rightly appreciated the facts and awarded the compensation and also ordered pay and recovery and hence there is no merit in the appeal and the same is liable to be dismissed. 9. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials available on record. 10. The accident and the fact that the first respondent only drove the vehicle at the time of accident are not in dispute. A careful reading of the oral and documentary evidence clearly shows that the first respondent hit against the drinking water pipeline kept on the road side and he himself stated that even after two years he went for his own work and the vehicle is not belongs to him. Medical records clearly shows that the first respondent/claimant at the time of accident was under the influence of alcohol. In this case, no other vehicle was involved and the owner of the vehicle has not denied that the claimant was not employed under him. The claimant also did not possess valid driving license at the time of accident. 11. From the materials available as stated above, there were violation of policy conditions and further the claimant himself on his own negligence, under the influence of alcohol, hit against the drinking water pipe line, which was kept on the side of the road and hence this Court comes to the conclusion that the appellant/Insurance Company is not liable to pay the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 12. In fine, the order of the Tribunal is set aside insofar as fixing the liability on the appellant/Insurance Company is concerned and the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is hereby confirmed. The appellant/Insurance Company is exonerated from the liability and is at liberty to withdraw the amount deposited, if any. The owner of the offending vehicle is liable to pay the compensation awarded by the Tribunal and the first respondent/claimant shall recover the award amount from the second respondent/owner of the vehicle. Accordingly the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed. Consequently connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs.