JUDGMENT S.K. Dubey, J 1. Counsel state that instead of be disposed of finally. With the consent of passing any order on LA. for stay, the appeal the counsel, the appeal is heard finally. 2. Short contention raised by Mr. K.B. Chaturvedi is that, though the said vehicle was insured with the appellant company, insured is different and for that the claimants have moved an application for impleading him as a party, and, therefore, the Tribunal may pass order under Section 92-A of the Motor Vehicles Act after insured is noticed, though in compliance of the previous order passed on 1.9.1989, the appellant has deposited Rs. 7,500/- only on 26.6.1990. 3. In my opinion, Mr. R.D. Goyal has rightly submitted that the insurer, as shown in certificate of insurance, was impleaded and at the time of hearing of the application under Section 92-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 the appellant did not object. The certificate of insurance was not denied but it was contended that the registered owner is Bindrawansingh and the policy was issued in his name. The Tribunal observed that this question shall be decided at the time of final award. The claimants, to avoid any technical objection, moved an application to implead Bindrawansingh as a party and notice has been issued to him, who has not appeared so far. But for the accident which took place on 14.11.1985, and for that a claim petition was filed on 2.1.1986, the claimants have not been paid the fixed amount of compensation under Section 92-A which ought to have been paid immediately. 4. Admittedly, the vehicle is insured with the appellant company hence, if any defence is raised under Section 96 (2) of the Act, that has to be decided after trial and if after ultimate trial, amount of final award does not exceed or insurer is exonerated, the insurer shall be entitled to reimbursement of the amount from the insured. This court, while considering the scope of liability under Section 92-A in case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Phoolwati 1986 ACJ 106 (MP), observed that the language of Section 92-A does not yield at all to the limited construction suggested by the 'hit and run' theory, and the court owes a duty in this matter to promote and further the intention of the legislature by ensuring quick and instant payment of claims under Section 92-A. 5. Ltd. v. Phoolwati 1986 ACJ 106 (MP), observed that the language of Section 92-A does not yield at all to the limited construction suggested by the 'hit and run' theory, and the court owes a duty in this matter to promote and further the intention of the legislature by ensuring quick and instant payment of claims under Section 92-A. 5. For the same reason in case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Savitri Bai 1991 ACJ 540 (MP), this Court took a view that if in final award insurer is found not liable to pay compensation, because of the defences under Section 96 (2) of the Act, owner may be directed to reimburse the amount of interim award paid by the insurer. 6. Therefore, as the insurer of the vehicle is the appellant, the appellant is liable to deposit the amount at this stage as ordered by the Tribunal, hence, the appellant company shall deposit, within six weeks from today, the balance amount of 50 per cent with accrued interest, at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from 1.9.1989 till deposit, which the claimants shall be entitled to withdraw. 7. In the result, this appeal is dismissed with costs. Counsel's fee Rs. 150/-, if already certified.