Judgment Barin Ghosh and Sheema Ali Khan JJ. 1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant. Nobody appears on behalf of the Insurance Company. 2. The appellant is the owner of a jeep, which met with an accident. The National Insurance Company Ltd. issued a policy in favour of the appellant covering third party risks pertaining to the said jeep. In course of accident, a gentlemen died. His wife and minor children approached the Claims Tribunal seeking compensation. They claimed compensation of Rs. 2 lacs. The Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs. 2 lacs in favour of the claimants and directed the Insurance Company to pay the same. The Insurance Company preferred an appeal against the order of the Tribunal and therein contended that the Tribunal was not justified in applying the multiplier of 35.5, instead should have applied multiplier of 27. While the appeal was being considered, a learned single Judge of this Court, found that on admitted facts even if multiplier of 27 was applied, the amount of compensation payable to the claimants would exceed Rs. 2 lacs and accordingly, did not interfere with the quantum of compensation as awarded by the Tribunal. 3. In the appeal the Insurance Company contended that having regard to the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation vs. K.V. Sakeena and others, reported in 1996(3) SCC 446 , the owner of the jeep, namely, the appellant is liable to pay 40% of such compensation to the claimant. Learned Judge accepted such contention and accordingly directed the appellant to make payment of 40% of such compensation. 4. In the case referred to above, it was a bus of Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation which met with an accident. It was contended that the bus met with the accident in view of contributory negligence on the part of a truck which was coming from the opposite side. The Hon ble Supreme Court accepted such contention and accordingly, held that by reason of such contributory negligence, the compensation payable must be divided in between both the contributors. 5. In the instant case, no case had been made out as regards contributory negligence and even if such a case had been made out, the compensation could be shared in between the owner of the jeep and the owner of the truck which was coming from the opposite side. 5. In the instant case, no case had been made out as regards contributory negligence and even if such a case had been made out, the compensation could be shared in between the owner of the jeep and the owner of the truck which was coming from the opposite side. In so far as the risk of the owner of the jeep was concerned, the same was covered by the policy of insurance as was issued by the National Insurance Company Ltd. and accordingly it was the obligation of the National Insurance Company Ltd. to pay such compensation alone. The question of National Insurance Company Ltd. sharing a part thereof with the insurer did never arise. 6. In those circumstances, the judgment and order rendered by the appellate court is set aside and the award of the Tribunal is restored. 7. The appeal is accordingly allowed without any order as to costs.