JUDGMENT : Jayant Patel, J. Admit. Learned advocate Mr. Tolia waives service of notice of admission for respondent Nos.1 to 4, original claimant. Learned advocate Mr. Harshan G. Majmudar waives notice for respondent No.6- Insurance Company, the main contesting party. 2. The present appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 26.03.2014 passed by the Tribunal in MACP No. 213 of 2006 whereby the Tribunal has held all the opponents liable to pay compensation of Rs.20,63,317/- with interest @ 9% p.a. 3. The short facts of the case appears to be that, on 24.02.2006, at about 7 O'clock, deceased Chhaganbhai Visabhai Thakor was driving ST bus bearing registration No. GJ 18V 6895 from Surat to Radhanpur route. When the bus reached after crossing Ahmedabad near village Chharodi, one truck bearing registration No. GJ 12T 9208 was lying in the midst of the road without there being any side signal or any light or any reflector and hence, the bus dashed with the truck and the driver of the bus, deceased Chhaganbhai sustained injuries and he succumbed to the injuries. The claim petition was filed by the dependents-family members of the deceased being MACP No. 213 of 2006 for compensation of Rs.25 lacs. The Tribunal, at the conclusion of the petition found that the driver of the truck insured with respondent No.6, insurance company was fully negligent for the accident and therefore, held the driver of the truck liable and the Tribunal did not attribute any negligence to the driver of the bus-the deceased. However, in the operative portion, the Tribunal passed the order for joint and several liability of opponent No.3, ST Corporation. Under the circumstances, the present appeal before this Court. 4. We have heard learned advocate Mr. Dipak Aloria for Mr. Rawal for the appellant, learned advocate Mr. Tolia for the original claimants, respondent Nos. 1-4 and learned advocate Mr. Majmudar for respondent No.6, the main contesting party. So far as the respondent No.5 is concerned his presence may not be required. 5. 4. We have heard learned advocate Mr. Dipak Aloria for Mr. Rawal for the appellant, learned advocate Mr. Tolia for the original claimants, respondent Nos. 1-4 and learned advocate Mr. Majmudar for respondent No.6, the main contesting party. So far as the respondent No.5 is concerned his presence may not be required. 5. The only contention raised on behalf of the appellant in the present appeal is that, in the reasonings of the award at paras 28 and 29, it has been held that the driver of the truck and the insurance company of the truck are liable to pay compensation since the driver of the truck is fully negligent for the accident but, in the operative portion the Tribunal has held all the opponents including ST Corporation, which was opponent No.3 in the claim petition, liable to pay compensation instead dismissing the application against ST Corporation and therefore, the ST Corporation has preferred the present appeal. 6. Whereas Mr. Majmudar learned advocate appearing for the respondent No.6-insurance company submitted that New India Insurance Company Ltd. has not preferred appeal against the award in question at this stage because the liability to pay compensation was held to be joint and several of the Insurance Company with the S.T.Corporation. He submitted that the insurance company of the truck may decide to prefer the appeal if it is held that the insurance company is liable to pay compensation to the fullest extent i.e. 100%. However, neither Mr. Majmudar nor Mr. Tolia, learned advocate for the respondents are able to come out from the apparent mistake committed by the Tribunal in the operative portion running counter to the reasonings recorded in the body of the award. 7. In our view, it appears to be an apparent error on the part of the Tribunal. The operative portion of the award has to be in conformity with the reasonings recorded in the award. The reasonings shows that 100% negligence is found to be of the driver of the truck and consequently, full liability to pay compensation is of the driver of the truck and also the insurance company of the truck whereas in the operative portion, the liability is held to be joint and several, not only of the driver of the truck and insurance company of the truck but also of the S.T.Corporation. Under the circumstances, the apparent error is committed between the reasonings recorded by the Tribunal and the ultimate operative portion of the award. 8. There is substance in the contention raised by learned counsel Mr. Majmudar for the insurance company that in the event the operative portion is corrected by holding the insurance company and the owner of the truck fully liable to pay compensation, the insurance company may have the grievance and they may decide to prefer appeal in future. Hence, we find that such right to prefer appeal can be kept open in the subsequent appeal or the litigation if any preferred by the insurance company. At this stage, there is no appeal uptill now preferred by the insurance company and therefore, we may not examine the aspects of justifiability on the part of the Tribunal to hold driver of the truck fully negligent for the accident. 9. In view of the aforesaid observations and discussions, the operative portion of the award passed by the Tribunal is modified to the extent that original opponent Nos. 1 and 2 shall be liable to pay compensation. The application against original opponent No.3 shall stand dismissed. However, it is clarified that on account of present order passed by this Court, if the respondent No.3 Insurance Company find that the owner of the truck as well as the insurance company of the truck are not liable to pay compensation to the fullest extent i.e. 100% since the negligence of the driver of the truck could not be held to be 100% by the Tribunal, it would be open for the respondent No.3 insurance company to prefer separate appeal against the award passed by the Tribunal and, if such an appeal is preferred, the rights and contentions of both the sides shall remain open and the same shall not get concluded by the present judgment. Appeal is partly allowed to the aforesaid extent considering facts and circumstances of the case. No order as to costs. 10. In view of the order passed in the appeal, civil application would not survive and shall stand disposed. Appeal partly allowed.