PANDEY, J. ( 1 ) COUNSEL for the parties are heard. This is an appeal against the award dated 1. 9. 1998 passed by 1st Additional motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ambikapur in M. V. C. No. 15 of 1989. ( 2 ) THE learned Claims Tribunal has found the owner of the bus No. CPL 8004 liable to pay compensation to the respondent no. 1, Kalipat Mandal. The respondent no. 3, United India Insurance Co. Ltd. has been exonerated from its liability to pay compensation jointly and severally along with the appellant and the respondent No. 2, Balkishan, the driver of the vehicle. ( 3 ) IN this appeal, it has been argued that the Claims Tribunal should have passed the award against the respondent No. 3 also, requiring it to pay compensation jointly and severally along with the appellant and the respondent No. 2 for the reason that the bus was insured and the policy was not produced by the respondent No. 3 in the court below. By order dated 7. 5. 99 this court had directed that the respondent no. 3 shall produce a copy of the policy in the suit in respect of the vehicle. Accordingly, the learned counsel for the respondent No. 3 has already produced the necessary copy and now it is not in dispute before this court that the vehicle No. CPL 8004 was actually insured with the respondent No. 3. ( 4 ) IN view of this matter, the only argument advanced by the learned counsel for the respondent No. 3 was that the vehicle was registered with Chhabra Bus Service and not with Mahendra Singh Chhabra. There is hardly any substance in this argument because from the very beginning, mahendra Singh Chhabra has been admittedly shown to be the proprietor of Chhabra bus Service and an issue has been framed by the Claims Tribunal on that basis that Mahendra Singh Chhabra was the owner of Chhabra Bus Service. ( 5 ) THE respondent No. 3 had taken a stand before the Claims Tribunal that the vehicle was not insured. However, at this stage this plea has been found to be false and, therefore, it cannot take advantage of its own wrong to get a remand order. ( 6 ) AS a result of aforesaid discussion, this appeal is hereby allowed. The impugned award dated 1. 9. However, at this stage this plea has been found to be false and, therefore, it cannot take advantage of its own wrong to get a remand order. ( 6 ) AS a result of aforesaid discussion, this appeal is hereby allowed. The impugned award dated 1. 9. 1998 in respect of m. V. C. No. 15 of 1989 is modified to the effect that the respondent No. 3 shall also be liable jointly and severally to pay to the respondent No. 1, Kalipat Mandal, the amount of award, i. e. , Rs. 15,000 and the interest thereon at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of filing of the claim application, along with the appellant and the respondent No. 2. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Appeal allowed. .