Judgment M.Y.Eqbal, J. 1. This appeal is directed the learned District Judge-cum-Accident against the judgment and award passed by Claims Tribunal, Dhanbad, in title Suit No. 18 of 1987, whereby and whereunder the learned Claims Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 1,50,000 by way of compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act. 2. The claimants-respondents are the widow and minor children. The claimant widow filed an application for grant of compensation on account of death of her husband caused in a motor vehicle accident. According to the claimant, on 17.12.1986 at about 11.45 a.m. the deceased was coming on foot from his office to his quarter, he was dashed by a bus bearing registration No. BHG 7315 as a result of which he died instantaneously on the spot. Deceased was permanent employee of Salanpur Colliery as assistant in grade III. 3. From the impugned judgment passed by the learned Claims Tribunal, it appears that notices were sent to opposite parties, namely, owner and insurer of the vehicle and the said notices were duly received by signing acknowledgements but they did not appear. Ultimately, the claim application was heard ex parte and the impugned judgment award was passed. Plaintiffs-claimants examined four witnesses in support of their case. Learned Claims Tribunal after considering the facts and evidence of the witnesses assessed compensation of a sum of Rs. 1,50,000 and directed the defendants to pay the said amount of compensation together with interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum. 4. Mr. D.N. Chatterjee, learned Counsel for the appellant, firstly submitted that the impugned judgment and award, passed ex parte, cannot be sustained in law. Learned counsel further submitted that the vehicle was insured by a valid policy of insurance but the liability of the appellant company under the policy was limited to the extent of Rs. 50,000. The learned Counsel further submitted that the impugned judgment awarding compensation amount beyond Rs. 50,000 against the appellant insurance company is bad in law and is liable to be set aside. 5. On the other hand, Mr. Mahesh Tiwary, learned Counsel appearing for the plaintiffs-respondents, has submitted that the appellant insurance company did not appear in the suit despite the service of notice and the suit was allowed to go ex parte. The appellant, therefore, cannot be allowed to raise the question of law at the stage of appeal. 6. 5. On the other hand, Mr. Mahesh Tiwary, learned Counsel appearing for the plaintiffs-respondents, has submitted that the appellant insurance company did not appear in the suit despite the service of notice and the suit was allowed to go ex parte. The appellant, therefore, cannot be allowed to raise the question of law at the stage of appeal. 6. I have perused the lower court records of title Suit No. 18 of 1987. It appears that notice of the aforesaid suit was sent to the opposite parties but they neither appeared nor contested the suit. The plaintiffs filed various documents including the copy of the certified copy of the insurance to show that the vehicle was duly insured with the appellant insurance company. The judgment in the suit was delivered on 8.12.1987. From the aforesaid facts, it is evident that admittedly the vehicle was insured with the appellant insurance company and in absence of any defence or contest by the insurance company the Tribunal awarded Rs. 1,50,000 by way of compensation against the opposite parties. 7. Mr. D.N. Chatterjee, learned Counsel for the appellant, drew my attention to the order dated 6.6.1988 passed by this Court and submitted that while hearing the stay application this Court directed the appellant to produce the insurance policy to show that its liability was limited and in compliance of that order the appellant has filed insurance policy. Learned counsel submitted that from perusal of the insurance policy it will appear that liability of the appellant was limited to the extent of . 50,000. 8. In the light of the facts stated herein-above and the submission made by the learned Counsel the question which falls for consideration in this appeal is whether it would be appropriate for this Court to consider the insurance policy and decide the question of liability of the appellant under the said policy. It is worth mentioning here that till date the appellant has not filed any application under Order XLI, Rule 27 of the Civil Procedure Code for allowing the appellant to adduce the insurance policy by way of additional evidence. 9. Be that as it may, the fact remains that the vehicle was insured with the appellant insurance company and that the insurance policy has been filed by the appellant as directed by this Court in terms of the order dated 6.6.1988. 9. Be that as it may, the fact remains that the vehicle was insured with the appellant insurance company and that the insurance policy has been filed by the appellant as directed by this Court in terms of the order dated 6.6.1988. From perusal of the policy, it appears that the vehicle was insured in the relevant period when the accident took place and the liability under the policy was limited to Rs. 50,000. In such circumstances if I ignore the policy on the ground that it was not filed in the manner provided under Order XLI, Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure then it would amount to failure of justice. If I remit the matter to the Tribunal for the purpose of consideration of the policy and for giving a finding on the question of liability of the insurance company then the claimant would necessarily be harassed. In such circumstances, I feel it just and proper to admit the insurance policy into evidence and to decide the appeal, but subject to the payment of exemplary cost by the appellant for its latches and negligence. 10. As indicated above from the policy of insurance, it appears that the vehicle was insured with limited liability and, therefore, the Tribunal was not right in holding that the defendants, namely, the owner and insurer are jointly and severally liable to pay a sum of Rs. 1,50,000. It is also well settled that the Tribunal while awarding the compensation must specify in the award as to how much amount shall be paid by the owner of the vehicle and how much amount shall be paid by the insurance company. I, therefore, hold that out of the total compensation of Rs. 1,50,000 the appellant insurance company shall be liable to pay a sum of Rs. 50,000 and the respondent owner of the vehicle shall be liable for payment of Rs. 1,00,000. 11. The next question which falls for consideration is with regard to the rate of interest awarded by the Tribunal. In the instant case, the Tribunal awarded 6 per cent interest which in my view is not proper. The amount of compensation must carry interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum. 12. In the result, this appeal is allowed in part subject to the payment of cost of Rs. 7,500 to be paid by the appellant to the claimants-respondents. The amount of compensation must carry interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum. 12. In the result, this appeal is allowed in part subject to the payment of cost of Rs. 7,500 to be paid by the appellant to the claimants-respondents. The appellant shall pay a sum of Rs. 50,000 together with interest at the rate of 12 per cent from the date of the application. The rest of the amount shall be paid by the respondent-owner of the vehicle.