S. C. MOHAPATRA, J. ( 1 ) THESE two appeals under Section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, have been filed by the insurer in respect of a truck bearing registration No. ORD 3627. ( 2 ) THE truck collided with a car bearing registration No. OSC 2997 on 12-5-1981 on the N. H. No. 42. Occupants of the car sustained injuries and some of them dies at the spot. Claimants of four deceased persons filed four applications for compensation under Section 110-A of the Act against the owners of the truck and the car and two insurers in respect of the vehicles. During pendency of the proceedings owner of the truck have been expired, his legal representatives were substituted. On 18-1-1987 there was a Lok Adalat. Claimants in three claim petitions entered into a settlement with the insurer of the car for Rs. 10,000/- each payable by insurer of the car. Appellant-Insurer not having entered into settlement, proceedings continued as against the legal representatives of the owner of the truck and the insurer-appellants. In Misc. Case No. 124 of 1981 there being no settlement, it proceeded against all. ( 3 ) TRIBUNAL heard the four claim petitions together since they arose out of the same accident. It recorded that in three claim petitions there having been a settlement with the claimants by the insurer of the car, proceedings in those cases would continue against the appellant and legal representatives of the owner of the truck. Misc. Case No. 124 of 1981 which was not settled would continue against the owners of both the vehicles and both the insurers. Tribunal held that the accident in question was solely due to the rash and negligent driving of the truck and the driver of the car was not responsible in any manner for the accident. Accordingly, it made the legal representative of owner of the vehicle and the insurer-appellant liable to pay compensation. In Misc. Case No. 124 of 1981, it determined just compensation payable to be Rs. 45,000/ -. In Misc. Case No. 232 of 1981, it determined the just compensation at Rs. 99,000/- and adjusting Rs. 10,000/- settled with the insurer of the owner of the car, it made the appellant liable for Rs. 89000/ -. In Misc. In Misc. Case No. 124 of 1981, it determined just compensation payable to be Rs. 45,000/ -. In Misc. Case No. 232 of 1981, it determined the just compensation at Rs. 99,000/- and adjusting Rs. 10,000/- settled with the insurer of the owner of the car, it made the appellant liable for Rs. 89000/ -. In Misc. Case No. 235 of 1981, it is found that the claimants are not entitled to any compensation since there is no evidence that the death was on account of accident. However, on account of settlement with the insurer of the owner of the car, it held that the compensation of Rs. 10,000/- is payable by the insurer of the car. In Misc. Case No. 238 of 1981, Tribunal determined the compensation at Rs. 64,800/- and made the appellant liable for Rs. 54,800/- in view of the settlement with the other insurer at Rs. 10,000/ -. ( 4 ) IN the two claim petitions where compensation was awarded more than Rs. 50,000/-, these two appeals have been preferred. ( 5 ) APPELLANT does not dispute its liability. Insurer of the owner of the car having settled the dispute with the claimants in three cases cannot also dispute its liability. Quantum of liability fixed is also not in dispute. Accordingly, the short question for determination is with regard to the liability of the appellant and National Insurance Company Limited. ( 6 ) APPELLANT has made an application to admit the policy in respect of the truck as additional evidence to prove that its liability is limited to the extent of Rs. 50,000/ - in respect of the death of each person. ( 7 ) MR. P. Roy, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that in case the additional evidence is taken into consideration the balance of the compensation would be payable by the other insurer which has not disputed its liability and settled the claim. Mr. M. Sinha, learned counsel for the insurer in respect of the car submitted that in absence of any appeal against the two other cases making the appellant solely liable on finding that the driver of the truck is entirely responsible for the accident, there is no scope for making National Insurance Company liable since claims have been settled with the claimants in these two appeals. ( 8 ) THIS is a peculiar case. ( 8 ) THIS is a peculiar case. Destitute claimants who were deprived of the assistance of their bread earners for six years settled the claims with the insurer of the car for paltry sum of Rs. 10,000/- in each case to get some amount immediately. Appellant cannot bound by such settlement specially when the tribunal has a duty to apportion the compensation where there is contributory negligence. ( 9 ) MR. Sinha, learned counsel for the insurer, submitted that the National Insurance Company had absolutely no liability since occupants were gratuitous passengers. Besides, finding of the trial that the driver of, the truck is solely responsible for the accident, on account of his negligence being based on unimpeachable materials, ought not to be interfered with. ( 10 ) PW 3 was the occupant of the truck. He lodged F. I. R. about the accident. In his evidence he has stated that the truck was going in one direction and from the opposite direction the car was coming and the accident occurred on account of head-on collision, took place causing fatal injuries. In this background, when National Insurance Company settled the claim with the claimants does not open to that insurer to disclaim that the driver of the car had no negligence that there would have been no settlement. Accordingly, National Insurance Company cannot dispute its liability in these appeals. ( 11 ) NORMALLY in a settlement before just compensation is fixed, I would not have saddled a party with more compensation than that has been settled. This would have the effect of reducing the compensation payable to the claimants. If at all the parties would have settled the dispute together, question would have been different. When the insurer in respect of one vehicle only settled the dispute and the claimants having suffered for six years on account of loss of dependency, I am not able to reduce the compensation. ( 12 ) MR. Sinha submitted that the additional evidence could have been produced by the appellants before the trial itself to limit its liability. Same not having been done, this Court ought not to entertain the additional evidence. On perusal of the policy filed as additional evidence, I find that possibly a view might have been taken in favour of the appellant limiting its liability. Same not having been done, this Court ought not to entertain the additional evidence. On perusal of the policy filed as additional evidence, I find that possibly a view might have been taken in favour of the appellant limiting its liability. There can be no doubt that the tribunal was wrong in finding that the insurer in respect of the car was not liable which is contrary to the settlement itself. When settled the dispute with the claimants taking of a portion of the liability, it impliedly admitted its liability. This aspect has not been considered by the tribunal and in case, I would have remitted the matter, the policy could have been admitted. However, remanding back the matter to the tribunal would cause further harassment to the claimants who are not responsible for nonfiling of the insurance policy by the appellant. ( 13 ) IT is not disputed that the insurers in respect of both the vehicles are nationalised insurers under the control of one apex body. In such circumstances, it makes no difference as to which of the insurers would be made liable and to what extent. In the peculiar circumstance of the case, while admitting the additional evidence for a just decision, I am not inclined to interfere with the direction given by the tribunal that the appellant shall pay the compensation amount to the claimants though I am not able to accept the finding that the driver of the truck alone was responsible for the accident. In view of insurance policies, appellant may move the apex body for apportionment of the compensation awarded so that there will be no disadvantage to the claimants and the question of apportionment can be squared up by intervention of the apex body. ( 14 ) BEFORE concluding, I may observe that the portion of the compensation amount which has been deposited by the appellant in this Court on 15-10-1988, shall be remitted by the Registrar to the Tribunal for disbursement in accordance with the direction given by it. All the parties are directed to appear before the tribunal on 18-9-1989 on which day a date shall be fixed by the tribunal for calculation of the balance amount payable by the appellant to give it some time to deposit the same for disbursement. ( 15 ) WITH the aforesaid observations and directions these two appeals have been disposed of. No costs. ( 15 ) WITH the aforesaid observations and directions these two appeals have been disposed of. No costs. Order accordingly. .