JUDGMENT : This appeal is directed against the ORDER :and award dated 8th of September, 2006 passed by the Ist Additional District JudgecumClaim Tribunal, Gopalganj in Motor Vehicle Case No. 5 of 2006/1 of 2006 whereby the claim of the claimant was allowed. However, while allowing the claim, the Tribunal directed the respondent Oriental Insurance Company to pay 60 per cent of the award and rest 40 per cent was to be payable by the appellant Insurance Company, i.e. United India Insurance Company Ltd. 2. The short facts for disposal of the present appeal is 8th that on of March 2006, at about 5 P.M. the husband of the claimant Rajni Tiwari and father of respondent nos. 2 to 4 were proceeding for some work from Jagi Road to Gauhati in a Maruti Car bearing Maruti Car No. AS25C/2328 insured with the appellant United India Insurance Company Ltd. Unfortunately, the said Maruti Car was dashed by a Truck bearing Truck No. ML07/8548 insured with the respondent Oriental Insurance Company being driven rashly and negligently coming from the opposite direction causing accident to the Maruti Car leading to the spot death of the deceased Jyoti Bhushan Tiwari, husband of the Appellant No. 1. After completing the necessary formalities of the postmortem, the First Information Report was lodged vide Khetripur P.S. Case No. 32 of 2006 dated 9th of March, 2006. The claim application was filed before the Tribunal at Gopalganj since the claimants were resident within the district of Gopalganj. The claimant adduced evidence as eye witness who was occupant of the Maruti Car, was examined as AW1, Arjun Dubey and also considering the other documents brought on the record, the Tribunal allowed the claim as per the ORDER :under the appeal, however directed that 60 per cent of the compensation awarded shall be payable by the respondent Oriental Insurance Company and rest 40 per cent to be payable by the United India Insurance Company, Ltd. with whom the Maruti Car in question was insured. The appellant Insurance Company on being aggrieved by such award directing the payment of 40 per cent has preferred this appeal. 3. Mr. The appellant Insurance Company on being aggrieved by such award directing the payment of 40 per cent has preferred this appeal. 3. Mr. Durgesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the award directing the payment of 40 percent by the appellant Insurance Company has no legal justification for the simple reasons that the claim of the applicant was only against the respondent Oriental Insurance Company and not against the United India Insurance Company Ltd. Secondly, from the evidence brought on the record, it is clear that it was the offending truck who was being driven rashly and negligently with high speed and the driver of the Maruti Car having seen such driving of the truck, brought Maruti Car in the extreme left of the road in ORDER :to avoid dashing by the truck. However, since the truck in question was being driven rashly and negligently, the driver of the truck lost control and dashed the Maruti Car even going to the extreme left of the Maruti Car. As such, there is absolutely no negligence whatsoever on the part of the driver of the Maruti Car. It is further submitted that merely the accident was head on collusion, the negligence cannot be fastened on the driver of the Maruti Car and as such, in view of the pleading as also the evidence on the record, there could have been no award against the appellant United India Insurance Company Ltd. for payment of 40 per cent of the claim. It is further submitted that claim for recovery of the compensation amount, a certificate proceeding was initiated vide Certificate Case No. 101/20072008 before the Certificate Officer, Gopalganj and the interlocutory application filed by the appellant Insurance Company for stay, was rejected and as such, the appellant having no option had to pay the 40 per cent of the compensation amount with interest which was withdrawn by the claimant on furnishing the necessary security. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent nos. 1 to 4 submits that the security furnished by the claimant for receiving the money deserves to be released. 5. Mr. Prakash Kumar, learned counsel for the Oriental Insurance Company, on the other hand, submits that both the insurance company i.e. appellant Insurance Company and respondent Insurance Company have paid their respect amounts and as such, practically nothing remains for any adjudication in this appeal. 5. Mr. Prakash Kumar, learned counsel for the Oriental Insurance Company, on the other hand, submits that both the insurance company i.e. appellant Insurance Company and respondent Insurance Company have paid their respect amounts and as such, practically nothing remains for any adjudication in this appeal. Learned counsel, however, supports the ORDER :of the Tribunal that the driver of both the vehicles contributed to the cause of accident. 6. Upon considering the rival submissions of the learned counsel for both the Insurance Company as also the counsel appearing for the claimants, the very ORDER :allowing the compensation is not in dispute. The only dispute is being raised by the appellant Insurance Company that there can be no legal justification for directing the payment of 40 per cent of the compensation amount in absence of any claim of the applicant against the appellant Insurance Company moreso in absence of any evidence on the record justifying such direction. On perusal of the claim application, evidence on the record, evidence of the eye witness (AW 1) as also the documentary evidence on the record, there is nothing to suggest that the driver of the Maruti Car which was insured with the appellant Insurance Company contributed anything/lapses/negligence resulting into the accident in question. The evidence of the eye witness is that on seeing the rashly and negligent driving of the truck coming from the opposite direction, the driver of the motor vehicle brought his Maruti Car to the extreme left of the road, however, since the truck was being driven in a rash and negligently, the driver of the truck lost control and hit the Maruti Car who was going slowly on the extreme left of the road. On appreciation of the evidence noticed above, it cannot be held that the Maruti Car was also being driven in such manner which contributed to the accident in question. Therefore, in the opinion of the court, the appellant Insurance Company with whom the Maruti Car in question was insured cannot be held responsible as be directed for payment of 40 per cent of the compensation amount. 7. In the result, for the reasons and discussions made above, the part of the impugned ORDER :/award directing for payment of 40 per cent of the compensation amount by the appellant Insurance Company is set aside. 7. In the result, for the reasons and discussions made above, the part of the impugned ORDER :/award directing for payment of 40 per cent of the compensation amount by the appellant Insurance Company is set aside. The entire compensation amount is directed to be paid by the Respondent Oriental Insurance Company. It is submitted by the appellant Insurance Company that the 40 per cent amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal has already been paid, as such, the said amount be refunded back by the Oriental Insurance Company to the Appellant Insurance Company and the security furnished by the claimants i.e. respondent nos. 1 to 4, be released in their favour. I ORDER :accordingly. 8. The appeal stands allowed to the extent as indicated above. No cost.