JUDGMENT : S.C. Mohapatra, J. - This is an appeal by the insurer u/s 110D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (for short "the Act"). 2. Before the Tribunal, the owner of the vehicle appeared and contested. Accordingly, the permissible zone under which the insurer could contest would be as provided u/s 96(2) of the Act. 3. Mr. A. K. Mohanty, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, placed all the materials to convince me that the award given by the Tribunal is not in accordance with judicial norms and while determining the negligence or determining the just compensation, the principles laid down have not been followed. 4. I am afraid that in the appeal of the insurer, I cannot go into such question specially when the owner had contested before the Tribunal. In case the insurer had filed an application before the Tribunal stating that there was collusion between the owner and the claimant and the same had been rejected by the Tribunal in appeal by the insurer, I would have considered the allegation of the insurer and in case I had been satisfied about the allegation of collusion, I would have permitted the insurer to argue the matter on merits also. Such is not the case here. Mr. Mohanty could not bring home the points within the compass of Section 96(2) of the Act. Accordingly, I am not inclined to interfere with the decision of the Tribunal. 5. Mr. Mohanty submitted that the Tribunal acted contrary to law in directing payment of the fee on the claim petition by the insurer. Court fee is payable as provided under the Orissa Motor Vehicles (Accidents Claims Tribunal) Rules, 1960. Rule 22 provides for the fee payable before the Tribunal. Sub-rule (2) thereof reads as follows : "(2) The Claims Tribunal may, in its discretion, exempt a party from the payment of fee prescribed under Sub-rule (1) : Provided that where the claim of a party is accepted, whether in full or in part, by the Claims Tribunal, the party shall be liable to pay the fees exempted under this sub-rule, at the time of receiving the award." 6. Thus, in view of Rule 22(2), there is no scope for the Tribunal to fix the liability on the insurer for payment of the fee on the claim petition. The Tribunal is not correct to that extent. Thus, in view of Rule 22(2), there is no scope for the Tribunal to fix the liability on the insurer for payment of the fee on the claim petition. The Tribunal is not correct to that extent. However, it is well settled that costs shall follow the event unless otherwise prohibited. While directing the claimant to pay the fee, the amount payable by the claimant as fee can be awarded as costs to him against the insurer, where the insurer contested the claim and failed to the extent of the award. In this case, the court fee payable on the claim application is not disputed to be Rs. 1,500. However, the fee payable on the awarded amount would be Rs. 125. Therefore, I modify the order of the Tribunal to the following extent: " The claimants shall pay the fee on the claim application and the insurer shall pay consolidated costs to that extent, both for hearing as well as towards the fee payable." 7. Thus, to avoid the justified technical objection of Mr. A. K. Mohanty, I direct that a consolidated cost of Rs. 1,500 shall be paid by the insurer to the claimants. 8. In the result, the appeal has no merit which is, accordingly, dismissed. Since I have modified the costs awarded by the Tribunal, I award no costs in this appeal which I would have awarded against the appellant if I had not modified the order. Final Result : Dismissed