ORDER S.K. Dubey, J. 1. Counsel stale that instead of passing any order on I.A. for stay, the appeal be disposed of finally. With the consent of the counsel, the appeal is heard finally. 2. Short contention raised by Shri Chaturvedi is that, though the said vehicle was insured with the appellant/Company, insured is a different, have moved an application and for that the claimants have moved an application for implcading him as a parly, and therefore, the Tribunal may pass order under Section 92-A of the Motor Vehicle's Act after insured is noticed though in compliance of the previous order passed on i.e. 1989, the appellant has deposited Rs. 7,500/- only on 26.6.1990. 3. In my opinion, Shri R.D. Goyal has rightly submitted that the insurer, as shown in certificate of insurance was implcadcd and al the time of hearing of the application under Section 92-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, the appellant did not object. The certificate of insurer was not denied but, it was contended that the registered owner is Bindrawansigh and the policy was issued in his name, the Tribunal observed that this question shall be decided al the lime of final award. The claimants to avoid any technical objections moved an application to impaled Bindrawan Singh as a party and notice has been issued to him, who is not appeared so far. Bur 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 and 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 no be decided after trial and if after ultimate trial, amount of final award of insurance exceeds or insurer is exonerated, the insurer shall be entitled lo reimbursement of the amount from the insurer. This Court, while considering the scope of liability under Section 92-A in case of N.I. Assurance Company v. Phoolwati 1985 JLJ 718 , observed that the language of Section 92-A docs not yield at all to the limited instruction suggested by that 'hit' & run theory, and the Court owes a duly in this mailer lo promote and further the intention of the legislature by ensuring quick and instant payment of claims under Section 92-A. 5. For the same reasons, in case of National Insurance v. Smt. Savitri 1990 JLJ 664 : 11 (1990) ACC 505 this Court look u view that if in final award insurer is found not liable to pay compensation, because of the defended under Section 96(2) of the Act, the amount of interim award paid by insurer, owner may be directed to reimburse the amount lo 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% with accrued interest at the rate of 12% p.a. 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 Rs. 150/- if already certified.