Judgment :- The appellant is aggrieved by the award of Rs. 18,000/- byway of compensation. On the question whether the appellants driver was negligent and rash in driving the bus, the Court below relied upon the evidence of P.W. 1 and also the admission of R.W.I.R.W.I was the driver of the bus belonging to the appellant. He admitted that there was open space on the left side. Yet, he overtook a stationary lorry and while doing so, he dashed against the first respondents lorry, thus causing damage. Apart from the oral evidence, the photographs (Exs. A. 2 to A. 5) taken at the place of the accident, are also considered by the court below. The court below has considered the evidence properly and in detail, and has come to the conclusion that factually rashness and negligence on the part of R.W.I has been proved. I do not find any justification to interfere with the said finding of fact. 2. The amount of compensation fixed by the Court below is also not excessive and nothing can be said against the same. 3. A contention is raised by the learned counsel for the appellant that the petition for award of compensation under S. 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, hereinafter referred to as the Act, is not maintainable as the Insurance Company has not been made a party. Learned counsel has not been able to cite any authority for this proposition. None of the Sections in the Act compels a claimant to implead the Insurance company as a party. The claim as against the Insurance company is based upon a contract between the company and the insured. On that basis the insurance company reimburses the insured with compensation to the extent to which it is liable. That does not mean that the Insurance company is a necessary party to a proceeding for claiming compensation. Nor will its absence vitiate the proceeding on the ground of nonjoinder. There is no provision in law that the Insurance company should be compulsorily added as a party to the proceeding. Hence I am unable to accept this contention of learned counsel for the, appellant. 4. Learned counsel urged that the subsequent enhancement of the compensation by the Court below from Rs. 15,500/- to Rs. 18,000/-is erroneous. But I find that the original award of Rs. Hence I am unable to accept this contention of learned counsel for the, appellant. 4. Learned counsel urged that the subsequent enhancement of the compensation by the Court below from Rs. 15,500/- to Rs. 18,000/-is erroneous. But I find that the original award of Rs. 15,500/-was based on a mistake on the part of the court below when it had taken the value of the spare parts at Rs. 16,000. The amount proved was Rs. 21,000 as per the documents. Hence there was a difference of Rs. 1,500 in the actual award. That was purely a clerical mistake and by order dated 9.9.1989 made in Application No. 117 of 1989 the court below corrected the mistake in the award. I do not find any error in the procedure adopted by the Court below. 5. In the result, there is no merit in this appeal and it is accordingly dismissed.