Judgment 1. This appeal has been preferred by the Insurance Company against the award of Rs.80500/-(Rupees Eighty Thousands and Five Hundred Only) made in favour of the first respondent /claimant. 2. The case of the claimant before the Tribunal was that she got injured when she was travelling in his scooter on 15.06.1987 which skidded while the two wheeler rider tried to avoid the tractor trailor. Hence, she sustained fracture in the left ankle, contusion in the hip and bleeding injuries all over the body. 3. She claimed a sum of Rupees One Lakh. The said claim petition was resisted by the appellant insurance company contending that the owner of the Tractor trailor was not made as a party. In the absence of the owner of the vehicle, the claim petition is not maintainable. 4. On appreciation of pleadings and evidence the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident occurred because of the negligence on the part of the driver of the tractor and trailor and however directed the appellant and the 2nd respondent to pay an award amount of Rs.80500/-.Against the said award only the present appeal has been preferred 5. Mrs. N. Mala, the Learned Counsel for Appellant submitted that the First Information Report marked as Exhibit A-1 given against the driver of the tractor trailor and the evidence of P.W.1 was that because of the negligent driving of the tractor trailor, the accident occurred and the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the tractor trailor alone was responsible for the accident. The Tribunal should have dismissed the petition and ought not to have directed the appellant Insurance Company to pay the amount, as the owner and insurer of the tractor trailor was not made a party to the proceedings. 6. Though Mrs. N. Mala also cited two Judgments of the Honourable Supreme Court reported in Oriental Insurance Company Limited Vs, Premlata Shukla and Others reported in 2007 ACJ, 1928 and New India Assurance Company Vs Bismilla Bai & Others reported in 2009 SAR (Civil) 441 Supreme Court to contend when the two vehicles are involved, both the owners of the vehicles should be made as a party and if it is found that the vehicle which was not made as a party found to be responsible for the accident, the appellant company is not liable to pay the compensation. 7. On the other hand Mr. 7. On the other hand Mr. M. Sudhakar, the learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that the Tribunal ought not to have conducted the enquiry to find out who was responsible for the accident relying on para 9 of the counter statement filed by the appellant Insurance Company which reads as follows: "Near the Government Girls High School, there is a statue. This Petitioner was coming from Cherry Road and took right circle to go to State Bank of India side (i.e. from North to west). The alleged trailor was proceedings from east to West. In order to avoid collusion, the Driver of TN-27/B-9720 all off a sudden sweared the Bike and due to said on the road the bike sided and dash against the alleged trailor. It was only mistake of the bike driver". 8. The Learned Counsel submitted when the Insurance Company stated the accident occurred because of the mistake of the bike rider, the Tribunal ought to have held the rider of the bike alone was responsible for the accident and ought to have directed the appellant insurance company to pay the amount. 9. It is seen from the records that the claim petition was filed only against the second respondent and the appellant. The specific plea made in the claim petition is as follows : "While she was going to the office, near the Government Girls Higher Secondary school, the trailor lorry came from between the two wheeler in a rash and negligent manner and for that the rider of the two wheeler siding the road and due to the imbalance, he and with vehicle fallen on the road side caused on that rider of the vehicle and the petitioner was grievously injured". 10. The aforesaid allegation would make it clear because of loss of balance by the rider of the two wheeler, the claimant fell down and sustained injury. The counter statement filed by the insurance company would make it amply clear that the accident had occurred because of the negligence act on the part of the two wheeler rider. In the counter statement, the Appellant stated as follows : " It was only the mistake of the bike driver". 11. The counter statement filed by the insurance company would make it amply clear that the accident had occurred because of the negligence act on the part of the two wheeler rider. In the counter statement, the Appellant stated as follows : " It was only the mistake of the bike driver". 11. When the Insurance company itself categorically admitted in the counter statement that the negligence was on the part of the rider of the two wheeler which was insured with the appellant insurance company, the appellant insurance company cannot rebut the admission made in the counter statement. To put it, otherwise, the insurance company is estopped from denying its liability. Hence, as per the admission by the appellant insurance company it is liable to pay the compensation. As far the evidence of P.W.1. is concerned, much weightage could not be given as an ordinary Indian wife, she was not in a position to speak about anything against her husband/first respondent. When there was a categorical admission on the part of the insurance company in the counter statement, it is not necessary to adjudicate the claim based on evidence. The Tribunals finding that the tractor trailor was responsible for the accident is set-aside and this Court finds that the rider of the two wheeler alone was responsible for the accident accordingly the appellant insurance company is liable to pay the entire award amount as insurer of the two wheeler. As there is no challenge to the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the same is confirmed. 12. The appeal is disposed in the above terms and there will be no order as to costs.