JUDGMENT AND ORDER : Heard Mr. A.C. Bhowmik, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. D.C. Roy, learned counsel appearing for the appellant (the owner of the offending vehicle) and Mr. A. Lodh, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1 and Mr. K. Bhattacharji, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2. Despite due notice, no representation is available for the respondents No. 3 and 4. 2. This is an appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act by the owner of the vehicle bearing No. TR-03-A-0772 (Bajaj Delivery Van)challenging the judgment and award dated 29.11.2008, delivered in T.S.(MAC) 40 of 2008 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, South Tripura, Belonia. By the said judgment dated 29.11.2008, the victim namely Shri Raj Kumar Majumder @ Raju Majumder who suffered permanent disability has been awarded a sum of Rs. 1,80,562/- with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of the said judgment. It has been further directed that the compensation shall be paid within a period of 2 (two) months and if not paid, in that event the interest would be charged @ 9% and if the amount is not paid within 6 (six) months, then the said amount shall carry penal interest @ 12% per annum. 3. The solitary ground that has been taken in this appeal is that the vehicle at the relevant time was under valid insurance coverage of National Insurance Company Limited by the policy under No. 203001/31/07/6700001690 under the certificate No. 203001/31/07/6700001690 for the period of 06.11.2007 to the mid-night of 05.11.2008. The said policy also laid the limit of liability as an essential term of the contract. It is the admitted position that though the relevant policy was with the National Insurance Company Limited, in the proceeding being T.S. (MAC) 40 of 2008, the National Insurance Company Limited was not added as the party nor were they given notice informing that a claim has been raised by the said victim. 4. Mr. A.C. Bhowmik, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. D.C. Roy, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has strenuously submitted that they filed the reply and she had categorically stated in the reply that the vehicle was insured by the National Insurance Company Limited and the appellant along with the reply submitted a copy of the said insurance policy. 4. Mr. A.C. Bhowmik, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. D.C. Roy, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has strenuously submitted that they filed the reply and she had categorically stated in the reply that the vehicle was insured by the National Insurance Company Limited and the appellant along with the reply submitted a copy of the said insurance policy. But the claimant did not take any step either to implead the National Insurance Company Limited or to send notice to them, even the tribunal did not discharge its duty by issuing the notice to the National Insurance Company Limited. Finally the tribunal has observed as under : “Respondent No. 1 and 2 produced photocopy of registration certificate of vehicle No. TR-03-A-0772, tax token, insurance policy and also driving license. From the evidence it is clear that at the time of accident, the respondent No. 3, National Insurance Company was the insurer of the offending vehicle No. TR-03-A-0772. Exbt. A series. Insurance policy affirmed the fact that the offending vehicle No. TR-03-A-0772 was covered by third party risk insurance policy from 6.11.07 to 6.11.08. The accident occurred on 17.11.2007 within the period covering by insurance policy. But the claimant-petitioner failed to make National Insurance Company as party in this case. So, the owner of the vehicle No. TR-03-A-0772 is liable to pay the entire amount of compensation and respondent No.3. Oriental Insurance Company is absolved from their liability as Oriental Insurance Company was not the insurer of the offending vehicle at the time of accident. Thus, issue No. (ii) & (iii) are decided in favour of the claimant-petitioner.” Mr. Bhowmik, learned senior counsel has submitted that for the fault of the claimant he has been saddled with the liability, which is entirely unreasonable and perverse. 5. Mr. A. Lodh, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1 has submitted that the finding that the Opposite Party No. 3 was the National Insurance Company is absolutely dehors the records and as such, that finding cannot stand the scrutiny. He has raised a jurisprudential objection that the appellant without taking leave of this court has added the National Insurance Company as the party in this appeal, even though the said insurer was never added as the party as could be evident from the impugned judgment. He has raised a jurisprudential objection that the appellant without taking leave of this court has added the National Insurance Company as the party in this appeal, even though the said insurer was never added as the party as could be evident from the impugned judgment. Thus, the National Insurance Company has been deprived of whatever the limited defence they were entitled to raise in the said inquiry. 6. Mr. K. Bhattacharji, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 2, Oriental Insurance Company Limited has submitted that the claimant has unnecessarily made them party in the proceeding and in view of the finding as made by the tribunal and having not been disputed either by the owner or by the claimant their participation is only irrelevant and unnecessary. Such mindless impleadment has caused harassment and undue regal expenses. 7. Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, this court is of the opinion that the Oriental Insurance Company Limited ought to have been deleted from the proceeding being T.S.(MAC)40 of 2008 because the offending vehicle was not at all insured by the said Insurance Company and that fact was disclosed after filing of the written statement or objection by the owner of the offending vehicle. Accordingly, the Oriental Insurance Company Limited stands deleted from the array of the parties. In their place, the National Insurance Company Limited shall be added as the Opposite Party No.3 in T.S.(MAC) 40 of 2008. The tribunal shall cause necessary correction in the claim-petition in this regard. This court is of the further view that the National Insurance Company Limited has got their right to raise all the objection they are entitled to raise under law. The appellant, the Opposite Party No.1, in the proceeding below shall also submit the original copy of the insurance policy in the tribunal on the next date as would be appointed by this court. Since the valuable right of the National Insurance Company would be trammeled, if they are not afforded with the opportunity to file the written objection statement against the claim or on any other aspects that is material for determining the claim raised by the victim. This court is of the view that the impugned judgment and award dated 29.11.2008 is required to be set aside and accordingly, it is set aside. 8. This court is of the view that the impugned judgment and award dated 29.11.2008 is required to be set aside and accordingly, it is set aside. 8. In the circumstances, it would be appropriate to remand the matter to the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, South Tripura, Belonia for re-adjudication from the stage of filing the written objection/statement. But except the National Insurance Company Limited, no other party shall be allowed to submit the written objection/statement. This accommodation has been made with a view that the tribunal may give an opportunity to the National Insurance Company Limited, now the Opposite party No.3 to place their reply in response to the claim in the proceeding. The parties shall appear before the tribunal on 1st February, 2017 and on that day itself the National Insurance Company Limited shall file their written objection/statement, if any. The tribunal shall issue notice on the claimant-petitioner and the Opposite party No.2, the driver of the offending vehicle for their appearance on the next date as would be by the tribunal on 01.02.2017. The tribunal shall decide the matter within a period of 6(six) months from 01.02.2017. The appellant is permitted to withdraw the sum of Rs. 25,000/- that has been deposited in this court on proper identification. 9. With this observation and direction, this appeal stands allowed to the extent as indicated above. Before parting of the records this court is persuaded to observe that the tribunal does not have any authority to impose any penal interest by exercising the power provided under Section 171 of the Motor Vehicles Act. A catena of decision has been passed both the apex court and this court in this regard. Despite that the tribunals are passing the order of consequential penal interest in the event of non-payment. This practice must come to an end.