JUDGMENT : Guman Mal Lodha, J.—This appeal has been filed by Chhuttan Khan and Pep Singh, the owner and driver of bus No. RJR 1155 against whom, the claim of the Applicants, Soni Devi, Ashok, Kamla Bai, Usha Bai, Prem and Sher Singh, all dependents of the deceased Babulal has been accepted, granting compensation to the extent of Rs. 25,000/-. Babulal died, in an accident which took place on 17th March, 1970 involving bus No. RJR 1155 when it was going from Jaipur to Chomu. 2. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal has found that the accident took place on account of rash and negligent driving of the bus which was being driven by Pep Singh. The Tribunal has also exonerated the insurance company i.e., New India Assurance Company Limited on the ground that it has not been proved that at the relevant time and date, the vehicle was insured. 3. The bus owner has filed this appeal and Mr. K.N. Tikku, the learned Counsel for the Appellants, has submitted that, firstly, the negligence and rashness was not proved and therefore, no award should have been given. It was also argued in the alternative that the insurance company should have been made liable in case, the finding of the Tribunal regarding rashness and negligence is accepted by this Court. 4. Mr. S.C. Srivastava, appearing on behalf of the Respondent No. 7, the insurance company, has vehemently opposed the appeal so far as the liability of the insurance company is concerned. So far as the question of rashness and negligence is concerned, I find that the finding of the Tribunal is well sustained in as much as the evidence produced by the claimants is sufficient to show that the bus was being driven at a very high speed. In this connection, the statement of Rameshwarlal has remained unchallenged. In the examination-in-chief, he said that the bus was being driven at a very high speed and in respect of this aspect of the case, no cross-examination was done. Mr. Tikku pointed out that the accident took place on account of the fact that the tie-rod of the bus had suddenly broken and that was a mechnical failure, the driver or owner of the vehicle cannot be held responsible. Surprisingly enough, no such suggestion was made to Rameshwarlal in cross-examination. Mr. Tikku pointed out that the accident took place on account of the fact that the tie-rod of the bus had suddenly broken and that was a mechnical failure, the driver or owner of the vehicle cannot be held responsible. Surprisingly enough, no such suggestion was made to Rameshwarlal in cross-examination. Contrary to it, it was suggested that the tyre of the vehicle burst and on account of that, accident took place. I am, therefore, not prepared to disturb the finding of the Tribunal in this respect so far as issue No. 1 is concerned. 5. I also find that the compensation allowed is fair, reasonable and just on the proper appreciation of the evidence in this respect. 6. So far as the liability of the insurance company is concerned, I find that no issue was framed by the learned Tribunal. Surprisingly enough, while deciding the issue No. 2, the learned Tribunal in one line finding did not hold the liability of the insurance company by saying that, it has not been proved that on the date of the accident, the vehicle was insured with non-Applicant No. 3. This is most perfunctory, superficial and arbitrary way of deciding such an important point. In my opinion, if the insurance company joined the issue and took the plea that no insurance was in existence on the date of the accident, an issue should have been framed and both the parties should have been allowed an opportunity to lead evidence on this aspect of the case. This has not been done so far in the instant case and as such I am convinced that there has been failure of justice. 7. In the interest of justice, I am inclined to permit all the parties to lead evidence on this important question whether on the date of the accident, the vehicle in question was insured with non-Applicant No. 3 or not. The following issue is, therefore, framed for its decision by the learned Tribunal: Whether on 17th March, 1970 the bus RJR 1155 was insured with M/s. An and Insurance Co. Ltd., Bombay which has now been merged with New India Assurance Co. Ltd., New Delhi? This issue is numbered as issue No. 3A. 8. In the result, this appeal partly succeeds and is hereby partly allowed. Ltd., Bombay which has now been merged with New India Assurance Co. Ltd., New Delhi? This issue is numbered as issue No. 3A. 8. In the result, this appeal partly succeeds and is hereby partly allowed. The case is remanded back to the learned Tribunal for deciding the issue No. 3A, framed by this Court, as mentioned above. The learned Tribunal would permit all the parties to produce the documents or to summon the documents also in this respect and lead oral as well as documentary evidence. After recording the evidence if it is found that the vehicle in question was insured then, the learned Tribunal would pass an award against the insurance company for indemnifying the owner for an amount of Rs. 25,000/- only. If it is not proved that the vehicle in question was insured at the relevant date i.e., on 17th March, 1970 with this insurance company, then the insurance company would be exonerated. 9. In either case, the award given by the Tribunal for the amount of Rs. 25,000/- against the non-Applicant No. 1. Chhuttan and No. 2, Pep Singh, is confirmed and the award to that extent is only confirmed and the claimants would be entitled to get interest on the amount of award at the rate of 6 per cent from the date of the application till the date of realisation. With the above-direction, the appeal is decided. The parties would bear their own costs. 10. The record of the case should be sent to the concerned Tribunal immediately for proceeding according to law and directions mentioned above. 11. The Tribunal should also decide the case within two months from the date of the receipt of the record, as it relates to an accident of year 1970.