JUDGMENT : 1. This appeal challenges judgment and order dated 12th April 2005 delivered by the Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Nagpur in Claim Petition No. 278 of 1994 on limited aspects. One relates to the contributory negligence on the part of the other vehicle a truck bearing registration number MH31/5115 involved in the accident and the other relates to the need for making apportionment of liability to first pay and recover later between two insurers of the vehicles involved in the accident. One of the vehicles involved in the accident is already mentioned and the other one involved is a 5-wheeler goods auto bearing registration No. MH319587. The truck was insured with respondent no. 4 while 5-wheeler auto was insured with appellant herein. The accident occurred in the night of 6.4.1994 at about 12.45 am near Khapri on Wardha Nagpur road. The accident took place when the 5-wheeler auto by which scooter of the deceased Manikrao was being transported along with the deceased, gave a dash to the rear side of the truck. Deceased Manikrao was returning home the previous day on his scooter and as his scooter broke down, it was required to be carried in the said 5-wheeler auto for repairs to Nagpur. 2. Sofar as the challenge relating to contributory negligence of the truck in question is concerned, as argued by learned counsel for the respondents no. 1 and 4, I do not think that any different conclusion can possibly be there than the one arrived at by the learned Member of MACT. The learned Member has appreciated the entire evidence available on record in this regard and found that the distance of 15 feet occurring between the two vehicles at the time of accident was quite unsafe and, therefore, the learned Member placed entire blame for the accident on the head of the driver of 5-wheeler auto which was trailing behind the truck in question. In other words, the negligence for occurrence of the accident was completely attributed to the rashness shown by the driver of the 5-wheeler auto in driving the vehicle at the relevant time. The conclusion so drawn by the learned Member of the Tribunal, in my view, does reasonably arise from the facts established on record although another view could possibly also have been taken by the Tribunal. The conclusion so drawn by the learned Member of the Tribunal, in my view, does reasonably arise from the facts established on record although another view could possibly also have been taken by the Tribunal. But, the view so taken by the Tribunal certainly cannot be said to be highly improbable as would call for any interference with the same by this Court. Therefore, I am not inclined to upset the findings recorded by the Tribunal as regards the complete negligence attributable to the driver of the 5-wheeler auto in occurrence of the accident and the resultant death of Manikrao in the fateful night of 6.4.1994. 3. This 5-wheeler auto was insured with the appellant. But, deceased Manikrao was the owner of the scooter which was being transported by 5-wheeler auto and as its risk was not covered under the insurance policy, the appellant was exonerated of its liability to pay compensation jointly and severally with the owner-cum-driver of the 5-wheeler auto. Still, the learned Member of the Tribunal found it fit to issue direction of pay first and recover later to the appellant. It is here that the appellant would have a serious objection. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that for whatever reason be it, the appellant as an insurer of the 5 wheeler auto in question has not been found liable to pay compensation and, therefore, it ought to have been treated at par with the insurer of the other vehicle involved in the accident, which is respondent no. 4 in the present appeal and thus, the liability so fastened upon the appellant, even for a temporary period of time, ought to have been equally distributed between the two insurers. 4. Learned counsel for respondents no. 1 and 4 and learned counsel for respondents no. 5 and 6 state that they would submit to the decision that may be rendered by the Court and pray for passing of appropriate order. 5. The point that now needs to be considered is, as to whether or not even respondent no. 4 as an insurer of the other vehicle involved in the accident could be made equally liable, albeit temporarily, to first pay and later recover from the owner/driver of the 5-wheeler auto in question. 5. The point that now needs to be considered is, as to whether or not even respondent no. 4 as an insurer of the other vehicle involved in the accident could be made equally liable, albeit temporarily, to first pay and later recover from the owner/driver of the 5-wheeler auto in question. I think, if one considers the facts of the case in entirety, the only conclusion that would arise from these facts would be that the temporary liability or the responsibility in the instant case is required to be equally placed upon the shoulders of the appellant as well as insurer of the other vehicle involved in the accident i.e. respondent no. 4. 6. The reason for drawing the above conclusion is that once an insurer is exonerated of its liability to pay the compensation for one reason or the other, what is to be considered is the balance of convenience between the claimants and the insurer and not the reasons which go behind giving of clean chit to the insurer as regards its liability to pay the compensation. In the instant case, one insurer i.e. respondent no. 4 with whom the truck in question was insured has not been held liable to pay any compensation for the reason that driver of the truck was not found negligent in driving the vehicle at the relevant time. The other vehicle i.e. 5-wheeler auto involved in the instant case was found responsible entirely for causing of the accident because of its rash driving by its driver. But, insurer of this vehicle has been given complete exemption from its liability to pay compensation because the risk of the deceased as owner of the goods being carried by the 5-wheeler auto at the relevant time (before amendment to Section 147 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988), was not covered as no insurance premium to cover the risk was admittedly paid. This would show that the reasons for non-fastening of the liability upon the insurers of the two vehicles were different, but the conclusions were the same which were that the insurers of both the vehicles were not liable to pay any compensation. 7. This would show that the reasons for non-fastening of the liability upon the insurers of the two vehicles were different, but the conclusions were the same which were that the insurers of both the vehicles were not liable to pay any compensation. 7. In such case, the Tribunal would be required to consider, if at all it chooses to direct one of the insurers to first satisfy the Award and later recover the amount paid from the driver and owner of the vehicle found negligent, as to where the convenience of the claimant to recover the amount would lie and if it comes to the conclusion that the convenience would be there where it would be, from the claimants viewpoint, least expensive and most expeditious to recover the amount the Tribunal must opt for the same. In the instant case, it appears from the impugned judgment and order, no such effort has been undertaken by the Tribunal and just because the driver-cum-owner of one vehicle was found to be negligent, its insurer was chosen to satisfy the Award although the insurer itself was exonerated of the liability. The Tribunal did not consider the aspect of convenience in any manner and, therefore, I find that the Tribunal has committed a serious error of fact and law in fastening, though temporarily, the entire responsibility to pay the compensation upon the appellant. In such a case, in my view, the appellant as well as respondent no. 4 being the insurers presented to the claimants the identical and equally impressive convenience factor and, therefore, ought to have been directed to pay 50% each of the decretal amount first to the claimants and then recover from the owner of the 5-wheeler auto in question. Thus, the point involved in this regard is answered accordingly. 8. The appeal is partly allowed. The impugned direction given to the appellant regarding satisfying the Award first and recovering the amount later on from respondent no. 2 needs to be modified and now, the appellant and respondent no. 4 shall equally bear the liability to pay the compensation awarded by the Tribunal and shall be at liberty to recover the same from owner-cum-driver i.e. respondent no. 2. (See: National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Baljitkaur & ors reported in 2004 (2) Mh. L. J. 372; Oriental Insurance Co. 4 shall equally bear the liability to pay the compensation awarded by the Tribunal and shall be at liberty to recover the same from owner-cum-driver i.e. respondent no. 2. (See: National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Baljitkaur & ors reported in 2004 (2) Mh. L. J. 372; Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanjappan & ors reported in (2004) 13 SCC 224 and National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Kusum Rai & ors reported in (2006) 4 SCC 250 ). The impugned judgment and order is accordingly modified. Respondent no. 1 and respondent no. 6 are permitted to withdraw the amount deposited in the Tribunal by the appellant which represents the entire decretal amount. However, respondent no. 4 United India Insurance Company is directed to pay 50% of the said amount to the appellant within six weeks from the date of this order failing which the appellant shall be at liberty to recover the same from respondent no. 4 by initiating execution proceedings by treating the order passed hereby as the one passed as an Award under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. No costs.