JUDGMENT Gurusharan Sharma and Amareshwar Sahay, JJ. 1. On 10-5-1991, Ashok Kumar Chauhan, son of Bhaiya Chandra Kishore Nath Sah of village Oaina, while on the way of Lohardaga on a motor cycle (BR-14 S-1045) along with pillion rider Sri Manoj Kumar Singh got proper signal from driver of the bus (BR-14 H-6008 going ahead but while overtaking, the said bus all of a sudden dashed the motor cycle Meanwhile an auto-rickshaw (BR-14 A-1771) came from opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner and at excessive speed and further dashed the motor cycle and thereafter, the bus again dashed it. It this process both the occupants of motorcycle received injuries. 2. Ashok Kumar Chauhan sustained fracture in his right leg and filed application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter to be referred to as the Act) for compensation which was registered as Compensation Case No. 128 of 1991, before the Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi. The United India Insurance Company Limited, Main Road, Ranchi, as insurer of both the auto- rickshaw as well as the motorcycle and the Oriental Insurance Company Limited as insurer of the bus were made parties. 3. The United India Insurance Company Limited appeared and filed written statement stating, inter alia, that in absence of the particulars of the insurance policy they were not in a position to admit whether those vehicles were actually insured with them. It was further pleaded that claimants must disclose policy particulars of each of the vehicles separately, else the Insurance Companys name should be expugned from the cause title. 4. The owner of the Bus appeared and filed written statement but its insurer did not appear and the owner of the auto-rickshaw too did not contest the claim case. 5. The Tribunal, on the basis of evidence on record, assessed total amount of Rs. 2,70,000/- payable as compensation to the claimants for the injury sustained by him in the said accident. The Tribunal thereafter, directed the insurers of the bus as well as the auto-rickshaw to pay half and half of the compensation amount. 6. The United India Insurance Company Limited preferred the present Appeal, under Section 173 of the Act and challenged the award on the ground that injured-claimant, while overtaking the bus was also responsible for the said accident. It was also contended that the amount of compensation awarded was highly excessive. 7. 6. The United India Insurance Company Limited preferred the present Appeal, under Section 173 of the Act and challenged the award on the ground that injured-claimant, while overtaking the bus was also responsible for the said accident. It was also contended that the amount of compensation awarded was highly excessive. 7. The owner of the auto-rickshaw appeared in this Appeal and filed counter- affidavit stating, inter alia, that his auto-rickshaw was insured at the relevant time with the National Insurance Company Limited for the period between 13-8-1990 to 12-8-1991 and a photocopy of the said insurance policy was annexed thereto as Annexure-1. 8. The appellant-United India Insurance Company Limited also filed a petition purporting to be under Order XLI, Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure to admit the said Insurance Policy of the auto-rickshaw as additional evidence in this Appeal. 9. This Court thereafter, issued notice to the National Insurance Company Limited. On appearance, the National Insurance Company Limited filed a petition for leave to be added as appellant in this Appeal. It was admitted that the auto-rickshaw was duly insured at the time of accident with them. 10. Hence, the National Insurance Company Limited was allowed to be substituted as appellant in place of the United India Insurance Company Limited in this Appeal and the United India Insurance Company Limited was transposed as respondent No. 6, being insurer of the motorcycle. 11. Mr. P.C. Roy, learned Counsel for the appellant, National Insurance Company Limited submitted that this Insurance Company was never impugned as party in the claim application, and, therefore, it was unaware of involvement of the auto-rickshaw in the accident in question and the impugned award was passed by the Tribunal exparte directing payment of compensation by the insurer, on behalf of owner of the auto-rickshaw. It was further submitted that according to claimant, he was hit by the bus and thereafter by the auto-rickshaw and as such contribution of the driver of the auto-rickshaw in the accident was far less than driver of the bus, when the claimants right leg was crushed by it resulting into multiple fracture therein. Hence, order of the tribunal directing the insurer of the auto-rickshaw to pay 50% of the compensation amount was not justified. According to Mr. Hence, order of the tribunal directing the insurer of the auto-rickshaw to pay 50% of the compensation amount was not justified. According to Mr. Roy, for non-examination of driver of the bus, the tribunal ought to have drawn adverse inference against the owner of the bus and entire liability should have been thrust on him. Mr. Roy further submitted that since the insurer of auto-rickshaw in absence of its owner could not get opportunity to contest the claim case, the case may be remitted to the tribunal for a fresh decision after giving opportunity to the Insurance Company under Section 170 of the Act to contest the case. 12. It is true that the appellant-Insurance Company was not a party before the tribunal and it was also not disclosed there that, in fact, the auto- rickshaw was insured with the National Insurance Company Limited. It came to be known for the first time during pendency of the present appeal when the owner of the auto-rickshaw appeared and filed counter-affidavit annexing a photocopy of the insurance policy and now the admitted position is that the auto-rickshaw was duly insured with the National Insurance Company Limited at the time of the accident. 13. We find that claimant had given a clear picture of the circumstances under which the accident in question took place. No doubt the motor cycle was hit by the bus first, while it was overtaking the bus, but in the meantime, the auto-rickshaw came from opposite direction in a very rash and negligent manner and at excessive speed and further dashed the motorcycle, as a result of which the motor-cycle and its occupants fell down on road and right leg of the claimant was crushed by the bus. 14. In such circumstance, taking into consideration the whole picture of the occurrence we are not inclined to accept the submission of Mr. Roy that the root of accident being the first touch given by the bus to the motor-cycle and the bus being a heavy vehicle in comparison to the auto-rickshaw its owner ought not have been made liable to pay 50% of the compensation amount and utmost he could have been directed to pay 1/3rd of the compensation amount. 15. Roy that the root of accident being the first touch given by the bus to the motor-cycle and the bus being a heavy vehicle in comparison to the auto-rickshaw its owner ought not have been made liable to pay 50% of the compensation amount and utmost he could have been directed to pay 1/3rd of the compensation amount. 15. The claimant in his deposition as A.W. 1 stated that the accident took place on account of negligence of both the drivers of the auto-rickshaw as well as the bus. Hence, keeping in view of the sequence of events leading to the accident, in out view as the auto-rickshaw was coming from opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner and at excessive speed, it lashed the motor-cycle resulting into fall of the occupants thereof on road, which gave rise to second hit by the bus. So the driver of auto-rickshaw also contributed to the extent of 50% in the accident, wherein the claimant sustained injury. 16. The accident took place more than 12 years ago and in our opinion that no purpose will be served even if the matter is remitted to the tribunal for a fresh decision after giving opportunity to the appellant-Insurance Company to lead evidence in the claim case. We find no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment and award. 17. The tribunal also directed the insurers of the bus as well as auto- rickshaw to pay interest @ 18% per annum, if the award amount was not paid within two months. The claimant has already received 50%, i.e., Rs. 1,35,000/- with interest from the insurer of the bus and Rs. 25000/- deposited in this appeal, vide challan No. J-114 dated 27-7-1995, under proviso to Section 173 of the Act, on behalf of the owner of the auto-rickshaw, by the United India Insurance Company. Pursuant to interim order dated 10-3-1997, the United India Insurance Company has further deposited a sum of Rs. 15000/- in Certificate Case No. 17 (M) of 1994-95, which is said to be lying there. Now instead of the United India Insurance Company, 50% of the award amount i.e., Rs. 1,35,000/- is payable by the National Insurance Company, the insurer of the auto-rickshaw. It is clarified, that the National Insurance Company shall pay Rs. 1,10,000/- to the claimant within one month and Rs. 25000/- to the United India Insurance Company. Now instead of the United India Insurance Company, 50% of the award amount i.e., Rs. 1,35,000/- is payable by the National Insurance Company, the insurer of the auto-rickshaw. It is clarified, that the National Insurance Company shall pay Rs. 1,10,000/- to the claimant within one month and Rs. 25000/- to the United India Insurance Company. Since the National insurance Company was not made party in the claim case and it was not award of such accident and/or award of the tribunal, it cannot be said that payment of award amount to the extent of 50% was knowingly dealyed by this Insurance Company and therefore, direction of the tribunal for payment 18% interest if payment of compensation amount was not made within two months is not applicable to it. The impugned judgment and award are modified as aforesaid. The United India Insurance Company is entitled to withdraw Rs. 15000/- which has been deposited in the certificate case, pursuant to interim order dated 10-3-1997 passed in this appeal. However, it is made clear that if the National Insurance Company by failed to pay/deposit 50% amount of award within a month, the claimant as well as the United India Insurance Company are entitled respectively to recover the amount with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of claim application as well as from the date Rs. 25000/- was deposited in the Court, till payment. 18. In the result, the appeal is disposed of with modification in the impugned judgment and award. No costs.