ORDER : S.B. Majmudar, J. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner in these special leave petitions. This is a case in which, because of an unfortunate vehicular accident, the petitioner's bus collided with a jeep car resulting in the death of the driver of the jeep car as well as the death of one passenger in the jeep and injuries to other passengers of the jeep. That gave rise to four claim petitions which came to be allowed and different amounts of compensation came to be awarded. These awards were got confirmed by the High Court and that is how the petitioner-Corporation is before us. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner-Corporation vehemently contended that even the High Court has taken the view that this accident was caused because of the equal negligence of the bus driver as well as the driver of the jeep car. Therefore, the award of compensation should be made payable not only by the Corporation, as the owner of the bus, but also on the ground of vicarious liability by the owner of the jeep as well as its insurance company. Unfortunately, the insurance company was not made a party in the proceedings. However, the claimants, who are the heirs of the deceased driver of the jeep, were parties. The parties proceeded on the basis that the driver of the jeep car was the owner of the jeep, but now it has been pointed out to us by way of IA No. 9 for permitting joinder of legal representatives of the driver of the jeep car and the insurance company in these proceedings, that the owner of the jeep car is different. It is interesting to note that in the statement of facts at p. C of the paper-book, it is stated by the special leave petitioner that the jeep was driven by deceased Kisturam who was also the owner of the jeep and that is presumably because of the stand taken by the petitioner up till now in the proceedings. However, we are not concerned with this aspect in the special leave petitions. So far as the claimant-respondents are concerned, they can certainly get their claims adjudicated upon and satisfied by any of the joint-tortfeasors. However, we are not concerned with this aspect in the special leave petitions. So far as the claimant-respondents are concerned, they can certainly get their claims adjudicated upon and satisfied by any of the joint-tortfeasors. It would be open to the petitioner, if so advised, to proceed on the basis of the decision rendered by the High Court in these proceedings that the driver of the petitioner's bus was only 50% responsible for the accident and not cent per cent and to claim contribution from the other joint-tortfeasors in accordance with law. It is obvious that such a claim was not up till now made in these proceedings. Whatever finding is reached by the High Court in these proceedings would obviously have to be reconsidered in appropriate proceedings if the petitioner files any proceedings against the heirs of the driver, the owner of the jeep car and the insurance company and claim contribution. In other words, the entire question will be open vis-a-vis the petitioner on the one hand and the other joint-tortfeasors on the other so far as the claim of contribution is concerned. This will of course be subject to the rider that qua the heirs of the deceased driver of the jeep, the petitioner's responsibility of 50% for the accident will remain binding as they are parties to these proceedings and after hearing them, a finding is arrived at that the driver of the jeep was guilty of 50% contributory negligence and accordingly, the claimants who are the heirs of the deceased driver of the jeep were given 50% of the total computed compensation. This finding against the heirs of the deceased driver is not challenged before us by them by filing any cross-special leave petition. So far as all the claimants are concerned, their claims will stand fully satisfied on account of the decision rendered by the High Court and on account of the payment of full amount of compensation by the petitioner-Corporation to the claimants. 3. We are told that the petitioner-Corporation has already paid 50% of the amount of the award to the legal representative of the deceased, Shri Rakesh Mohan, Advocate in Special Leave Petition (C) No. 16655 of 1997. 3. We are told that the petitioner-Corporation has already paid 50% of the amount of the award to the legal representative of the deceased, Shri Rakesh Mohan, Advocate in Special Leave Petition (C) No. 16655 of 1997. Pursuant to the order of the High Court, the petitioner-Corporation, without prejudice to its claim against the other joint-tortfeasors, as mentioned earlier, will deposit the balance of the amount in two equal instalments in full and final satisfaction of the claim of these respondents in the present proceedings. The first instalment of the balance amount shall be paid on or before 31-12-1998 and the second instalment shall be paid on or before 31-3-1999. 4. Subject to these clarifications and liberty reserved to the petitioner, these proceedings are closed and the special leave petitions are dismissed. SLP dismissed.