Order This is an appeal by the insurer against the award dated 16th February, 1996 of the 3rd. Additional District Judge-cum-Motor Vehicle Accidente Claim Tribunal Muzaffarpur, whereby compensation of Rs. 1,27,500/- has been awarded to the claimants against the appellant. Mr. Ashok Priyadarshi submits that as this was a case of collision between the two vehicles due to negligence of diver of both vehicles, the entire liability cannot be thrust on the appellant. He submitted that it is obvious from the judgment itself that the accident occurred due to negligence of the drivers of both the vehicles. It would be appropriate to quote the following paragraph from the judgment: " .... Ext. 2 is the certified copy of fardbeyan which shows that on the date of occurrence that tanker and truck met in accident which were coming towards opposite side and both the drivers met in accident and died on the spot along with a lady, although it is said that the accident took place due to rash and negligence driving of both the drivers. 2. It is noteworthy that A.W. 3 himself had lodged the F.I.R. about the accident. The Tribunal was not justified in brushing aside the statement in the HR. that the accident had occurred due to fault of respective drivers of the tanker and the truck. In paragraph 9 of the judgment the learned Tribunal has rejected the plea of the appellant that it was a clear case of contributory negligence. Mr. Priyadarshi has placed reliance on the Karnataka State Road Transport Corpn. vs. K. V. Sakeena and others, reported in 1996 (3) SCC 446 , which was a case of contributory negligence and the Supreme Court held that as the driver of one of the vehicles involved in the accident had also contributed to the accident, proportion of negligence should be 60% that of the bus driver and 40% that of tanker driver. It is true that in the instant case the Tribunal has held that only the driver of the tanker was responsible. As observed earlier, A.W.3. on whose evidence the Tribunal has held that the driver of the tanker was alone responsible, ignoring the F.I.R. which was lodged by the A.W3. Learned Counsel has referred to Section 64 UM of the Indian Insurance Act, 1938. As observed earlier, A.W.3. on whose evidence the Tribunal has held that the driver of the tanker was alone responsible, ignoring the F.I.R. which was lodged by the A.W3. Learned Counsel has referred to Section 64 UM of the Indian Insurance Act, 1938. Under sub-section (10) of Section 64 UM of the Act Central Government has exempted certain classes of the claims mentioned in the notification, from survey and loss of the injuries or death to third party. Learned counsel has submitted that in view of the Notification the Insurance Company has to act upon the F.I.R. of the accident. Acting on the F.I.R. the appellant agreed to pay Rs. 90,000/- out of Rs. 1,27,500/-. The appellant has already paid 60% of the liability. The only question is whether the appellant is liable to pay the entire compensation or 40% of the liability is to be borne by the insurer of the vehicle, which equally contributed to the accident. The Tribunal, in my opinion, has not properly examined this question. I have been informed that the insurer of the truck has been exonerated, from the liability. The claimant respondent has also not appeared. In the circumstances of the case, the award of the Tribunal is partly set aside and the matter is remitted for fresh decision. It is made clear that the appellant does not dispute its liability so far as 60% compensation is concerned. Out of Rs. 90,000/-, Rs. 75,000/- has been deposited in this Court that may be withdrawn by the appellant to be deposited before the Tribunal. That amount will be released to the claimant without furnishing any security, as Rs. 15,000/- compensation amount has already been withdrawn. The Tribunal will decide the question as to whether the negligence of driver of the truck was also responsible for the said accident. The Tribunal shall add the owner and insurer of the other truck and decide the matter after notice to time. The case must be decided within three months of receipt of this order.