Judgment P.K.DEB, J. 1. This appeal has been preferred by the above-named defendant- appellant against the judgment and award dated 10.8.88 passed by the 7th Additional District-cum-M.A.C.T. Judge, Dhanbad, in Title (M.V.) Suit No. 25 of 1979 awarding the compensation of Rs. 48,000 with interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum together with costs of Rs. 1,000 and the same had been ordered to be paid by the owner of the vehicle, i.e., the appellant. 2. The contention of the appellant is that on receipt of notice in the above mentioned claim case, he engaged a lawyer and after taking some adjournments, the learned counsel advised him not to contest the proceeding as his vehicle was insured with the opposite party No. 1, New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and on such assurance being given by his counsel, he did not pursue the matter but afterwards when a notice was received by him from the Certificate Officer regarding the payment of the compensation amount, he became surprised and on inquiry, he came to know that his engaged counsel was already dead and then he filed a petition before the Certificate Officer to the effect that his vehicle was insured and the same was admitted by the opposite party No. 1 vide Annexure 2 and, as such, the insurance company is to indemnify in payment of the awarded amount. But, the Certificate Officer did not allow his prayer on the ground that he being an executing court and the executing court cannot go beyond the decree and hence, the prayer had been rejected. Then, the petitioner had no other alternative but to file this appeal on a belated stage with a prayer for condonation of delay. 3. After consideration of the position and circumstances, a Bench of this court vide order dated 17.3.1998 issued notice to the insurance company, i.e., opposite party No. 1 on the limitation matter and it was also directed that the insurance company must state as to whether the vehicle in question was insured or not. 3. After consideration of the position and circumstances, a Bench of this court vide order dated 17.3.1998 issued notice to the insurance company, i.e., opposite party No. 1 on the limitation matter and it was also directed that the insurance company must state as to whether the vehicle in question was insured or not. A reply to the show cause has been filed by the insurance company opposite party No. 1, and it had not been stated specifically regarding the vehicle being insured or not but stated that Annexure 2 by which there was admission on the part of the insurance company regarding the vehicle being insured at the relevant time is an interdepartmental communication and the same could not be relied by the court. 4. During the course of argument, Mr. Alok Lal, learned counsel appearing for and on behalf of the opposite party No. 1 has vehemently argued that the appeal being hopelessly time-barred and grounds of condonation not being genuine, the appeal should be dismissed at the threshold. His contention is that although order passed by the Certificate Officer was wrong to the effect that it was an executing court but against the order passed by the Certificate Officer, no revision petition has been filed and the appeal has not been preferred within the period of limitation from the date of knowledge. His further submission is that the insurance policy was never filed either before the Tribunal or before this appellate court by the owner and in that way, the insurance company cannot be held liable and in support of it, he referred to a decision of this court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. V/s. Ram Khelawan Paswan, 1998 ACJ 821 (Patna). 5. It is true that if the insurance policy is not there then the owner is liable for payment of the awarded amount of compensa-tion but in the present case, the position is different. Although the insurance company by filing written statement in the Tribunal had denied about the vehicle being insured but it appears from Annexure 2 that there was admission on the part of the insurance company although in interdepartmental communication to the effect that the vehicle in question was insured at the relevant time covering the period of accident. 6. Although the insurance company by filing written statement in the Tribunal had denied about the vehicle being insured but it appears from Annexure 2 that there was admission on the part of the insurance company although in interdepartmental communication to the effect that the vehicle in question was insured at the relevant time covering the period of accident. 6. In a motor accident case for compensation, the owner is vicariously liable for compensating the injured or the claimants on behalf of the deceased in the accident and if the vehicle is insured at the relevant time then the amount of compensation awarded against the owner of the vehicle shall be indemnified by the insurance company. Such indemnification can be raised even at the time of certificate proceeding. Admittedly, certificate proceeding is not an execution proceeding and the question of executing court not going beyond the decree is not applicable in respect of the certificate proceeding. When the vehicle was insured then it must be indemnified by the insurance company but as the appeal has been filed at a very belated date and there are laches definitely on the part of the owner then the whole of the awarded sum in the present case cannot be fastened upon the insurance company. On allowance of the appeal after condonation of delay in the peculiar circumstances of the case, it is hereby ordered that the insurance company shall be liable to pay the award of compensation to the tune of Rs. 48,000 as granted by the Tribunal with interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum pendente lite till the date of award only together with the cost of the proceeding. The balance of interest from the date of award till the date of realisation of the awarded amount shall have to be paid by the owner appellant. 7. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. Appeal allowed.