JUDGMENT & ORDER : 1. Having heard Mr. A Das, the learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. S Dasgupta, the learned counsel for the claimant respondent Nos.1 and 2 as well as Mr. S. D. Choudhury, the learned counsel for the insurer-respondent No. 3, I am of the view that the appeal can be disposed of today on the basis of calculations made by the learned counsel for the appellant in respect of the interest calculated @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition. 2. The facts relevant for disposal of appeal are that the appellant is the owner of the Commander Jeep bearing Registration No.TR-02-2677 which met with an accident on 10-12-2004 at about 10.30 a.m. at Nakulbari, along with Assam – Agartala National Highway, under Ambassa Police Station, Dhalai District; the accident resulted in the death of the minor daughter of the respondent Nos.1 and 2 namely, Anna Molsom, aged about 1 year and another, who were travelling in that ill-fated vehicle. On the death of the minor daughter, the claimant-respondents filed a joint claim petition which ultimately resulted in the impugned award, dated 05-12-2009, passed by the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Court No.2, West Tripura, Agartala in TS(MAC) No.239/2005 awarding a compensation of Rs.2,25,000/- to the claimant-respondents. The Tribunal fastened the duty of satisfying the award upon the appellant-owner on the ground that there was no proof of insuring the vehicle by the appellant with respondent No.3 at the time of the accident. Aggrieved by this decision, this appeal has now been preferred by him for modifying the award to the extent of shifting the duty to satisfy the award upon the insurer as the vehicle was insured with it. 3. There is no dispute at the bar that neither the original insurance certificate nor the Xerox copy thereof was exhibited by the claimant respondents in the course of trial. That is how the liability for satisfying the award was fastened upon the appellant. The submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the vehicle was actually insured with the respondent No.3 but conceded that neither the original insurance certificate nor the Xerox copy thereof was filed or exhibited before the Tribunal. That is how the liability for satisfying the award was fastened upon the appellant. The submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the vehicle was actually insured with the respondent No.3 but conceded that neither the original insurance certificate nor the Xerox copy thereof was filed or exhibited before the Tribunal. This Court is, however, satisfied that the Xerox copy of the insurance certificate was filed and exhibited before the Tribunal in connection with Case No.T.S(MAC)No.2/2005 as evident from the record of this case requisitioned by this Court. It was apparently due to the lapses on the part of the counsel for the claimant respondents that such vital documents were not filed or exhibited before the Tribunal in the course of trial. 4. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, as the appellant was not aware of the award passed against him, and he came to know about it only after considerable delay, he managed to present the appeal along with an application for condoning the delay, which was ultimately condoned by this Court with certain conditions. The learned counsel for the claimant-respondents has now produced the insurance certificate in original, and the same is compared with the Xerox copy exhibited before the Tribunal in the said T.S. (MAC) No.2/2005. Under the circumstances, I am satisfied that the vehicle was actually insured with the respondent No.3 and that the liability to satisfy the award shall necessarily have to be fastened upon the insurer. The learned counsel for the respondent No.3, however, submits that the inordinate delay in presenting the appeal came about due to the negligence/inaction on the part of the appellant, for which the insurer can hardly be faulted with; the insurer should not be saddled with the payment of interest, which liability should be satisfied by the appellant. I agree. Why should the insurer be held liable for payment of interest when they were not at all responsible for the inordinate delay in presenting the appeal by the appellant? The impugned award, therefore, cannot stand in the present form and is liable to be interfered with to prevent miscarriage of justice. 5. In the result, the respondent No.3 is directed to satisfy the impugned award by depositing the awarded amount of Rs.2,25,000/- with the Registry of this Court within forty-five days from the date of receipt of this judgment. The impugned award, therefore, cannot stand in the present form and is liable to be interfered with to prevent miscarriage of justice. 5. In the result, the respondent No.3 is directed to satisfy the impugned award by depositing the awarded amount of Rs.2,25,000/- with the Registry of this Court within forty-five days from the date of receipt of this judgment. The interest payable on the awarded amount calculated @ 6% per annum, that is to say, Rs.1,25,000/- shall be paid by the appellant with effect from the date of the claim petition, which should also be deposited by him with the Registry within forty-five days from the date of receipt of this judgment. The penal interest of 2% awarded by the Tribunal shall not, however, paid by the appellant. Needless to say, the amount paid or deposited by the appellant, if any, shall be adjusted against the awarded amount. As and when the amounts are deposited, the same shall be released to the claimant-respondents without further reference to this court after satisfying the usual conditions. The appeal is, therefore, allowed to the extent indicated above. Transmit the lower court records forthwith.