THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY M.A.C.M.A.No.1278 of 2011 JUDGMENT: The appellant filed O.P.No.405 of 1999 before the I Additional District Judge (Motor Accident Claims Tribunal), East Godavari at Rajahmundry claiming compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- on account of the injuries said to have been sustained by him. The appellant was employed as a Cleaner on a vehicle bearing No. AP 03 U 640, owned by respondent No.1 and insured with respondent No.2. He stated that on 06.12.1998 he was driving the vehicle from Tadepalligudem to Ravulapalem and on the way, when he made an attempt to avoid collision with another vehicle coming in the opposite direction, the vehicle driven by him hit a tree and he sustained injuries. Respondent No.1 remained ex parte and the O.P. was contested by respondent No.2 alone. It pleaded that the appellant was not entitled to drive a vehicle much less he can claim compensation on account of the injuries said to have been sustained by him. The Tribunal dismissed the O.P. through order, dated 25.08.2008. Hence, this appeal. Heard Sri Ch.Dhanamjaya, learned counsel for the appellant. In all fairness, the appellant stated that being a Cleaner he was driving the vehicle and an accident occurred on account of the fact that the vehicle hit a tree. In the ordinary course, the Drivers of the vehicles are liable to pay compensation for the injuries or loss caused to others on account of their negligence in driving the vehicles. Since they happen to be the employees of the owners, the latter are held vicarious liability. Since the Parliament made compulsory the insurance of vehicles as a social security measure, an insurance company is held liable to pay the compensation in the event of the owner being declared liable to pay it. In the instant case, there is no third party, who sustained injuries. The appellant drove the vehicle without holding any licence and not being the Driver. At the most, a third party if any that has sustained injuries could have claimed compensation against the appellant and the respondents herein. The Tribunal had applied the correct principle of law and dismissed the O.P. This Court is not inclined to interfere with the same. The appellant can at the most claim compensation under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, if otherwise permissible in law. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dt.04.07.2011. kdl