JUDGMENT : M.R. Shah, J. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and award passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Auxi) Junagadh passed in MACP No. 710 of 1992, by which, the learned Tribunal has also held the appellant herein - original opponent no.4- National Insurance Company Limited - insurer of the Rickshaw No. GJ-11 T 3595 involved in the accident, the appellant herein - original opponent no.4 - insurer of the Rickshaw (goods vehicle )has preferred present First Appeal. 2. Shri Palak Thakkar, learned advocate for the appellant has vehemently submitted that as the accident occurred prior to 14.11.1994 i.e. on 21.10.1992 i.e. prior to amendment in Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act and therefore, as per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Asha Rani and Others reported in 2003 2 SCC 223 and the subsequent decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Vedwati and Others reported in 2007 9 SCC 486 and decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mallawwa (Smt.) and Others v. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. and Others reported in 1999 1 SCC 403 , the learned Tribunal has committed grave error in holding the appellant Insurance Company - insurer of Rickshaw also liable to pay compensation. 3. Shri Prashant Mankad, learned advocate for the original claimant is not in a position to dispute that the accident occurred on 21.10.1992 i.e. much prior to 14.11.1994 i.e. much prior to amendment in Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. However, has submitted that in the present case even driver of the motor truck involved in the accident is also held to be contributory negligent and therefore, it can be said to be case of composite negligence and therefore, the claimants can recover the entire amount of compensation even from the insurer of the motor truck involved in the accident. Therefore, he has requested to make suitable observations. 4. Learned advocate for the insurer of the Truck has chosen to remain absent. 5. Heard Shri Palak Thakkar, learned advocate for the appellant-insurer of the Rickshaw (goods vehicle) involved in the accident and Shri Prashant Mankad, learned advocate for the original claimants. 6. Therefore, he has requested to make suitable observations. 4. Learned advocate for the insurer of the Truck has chosen to remain absent. 5. Heard Shri Palak Thakkar, learned advocate for the appellant-insurer of the Rickshaw (goods vehicle) involved in the accident and Shri Prashant Mankad, learned advocate for the original claimants. 6. Undisputed facts are that the accident took place before the amendment in Section 147 which was brought about in the year 1994. The other aspect is that the deceased was travelling in goods carrying vehicle. In that view of the matter and in view of the judgment in the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Asha Rani and Others (supra) and New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Vedwati and Others (supra), the Claims Tribunal committed an error in judging the liability of the Insurance Company to cover the risk. 7. In view of the aforesaid undisputed facts, the present appeal of the Insurance Company-insurer of the Rickshaw No.GJ-11 T 3595 (goods vehicle) is therefore, allowed. It is absolved of its liability to pay compensation under the impugned award. The amount still lying with the Claims Tribunal, and deposited by the Insurance Company, would be returned with accrued interest, if any. However, the accident took place way back in the year 1992. Some portion of the compensation has already been withdrawn by the claimants. They might have also have received periodical interest. To the extent, amount already received by the claimants, there shall be no recovery from them. The Insurance company would be allowed to recover the same from the owner in these proceedings without having to file separate proceedings. It is also further observed that as it can be said to be case of composite negligence as in the present case even the driver of the motor truck involved in the accident is also held contributory negligence, it goes without saying that it will be open for the claimant to recover amount of compensation from the insurer of the motor truck involved in the accident i.e. opponent no.4 herein. However, so far as appellant Insurance Company is concerned, the present appeal is allowed as observed herein above and impugned judgment and award passed by the learned Tribunal in so far as holding the appellant-Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation is hereby quashed and set aside with above observations and directions. 8. However, so far as appellant Insurance Company is concerned, the present appeal is allowed as observed herein above and impugned judgment and award passed by the learned Tribunal in so far as holding the appellant-Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation is hereby quashed and set aside with above observations and directions. 8. The Appeal is allowed in the above terms. Record and proceedings be transmitted to the Trial Court. Appeal allowed.