JUDGMENT AND ORDER : Heard Ms. R. Purkayastha, learned counsel appearing for the appellant as well as Mr. S. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1 who however represents the respondents No.2 and 3 as the mother of the minor respondents No.2 and 3. Also heard Mr. R. Saha, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.4, SBI General Insurance Co. Ltd. 2. This is an appeal under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act from the judgment and award dated 24.11.2017 delivered in TS(MAC) No.228 of 2014 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal No.2, West Tripura, Agartala. 3. By the said judgment, a sum of Rs.8,20,000/- with interest at 6% per annum has been awarded as the compensation for death of one Haridhan Das who was travelling from Dukli by an auto rickshaw bearing No.TR-01-W-1738 carrying GCI sheets for construction of houses allotted to the beneficiaries of Purnagram village under Bikramnagar panchayat. He was engaged by some villagers to collect the GCI sheets on their behalf from the Dukli Rural Development Block. On the way to Bikramnagar when the vehicle reached near Bikramnagar Panchayat, the driver lost control of the vehicle due to extreme speed and it got turtle. From that accident, the victim sustained multiple injuries on his person. He was rushed to the Tripura Medical College & Hospital at Hapania for his treatment but he was declared dead. 4. The said vehicle bearing No.TR-01-W-1738 (auto truck) was insured by the respondent No.4 by their policy No.0000000000599261 for the period from 14.12.2012 to the midnight of 13.12.2013. There is no dispute that the accident occurred on 05.04.2013, meaning the accident took place within currency of the said policy as issued by the respondent No.4. 5. The solitary ground of objection as raised in this appeal is whether the finding of the Tribunal shifting the liability of payment of the compensation to the appellant is legally tenable having regard to Section 125 of the Indian Contract Act. 6. Ms. R. Purkayastha, learned counsel has submitted that the Tribunal though has observed that the deceased as the representative of the actual owner of the goods was traveling by the said vehicle but ultimately denied to saddle the responsibility of payment on the respondent No.4. According to Ms. Purkayastha, learned counsel this is grossly irregularity and in breach of the insurance terms. According to Ms. Purkayastha, learned counsel this is grossly irregularity and in breach of the insurance terms. She has referred to the insurance policy where under Section II which covers the liability to third parties, it has been provided as under: “(f) Except so far as is necessary to meet the requirements of the Motor Vehicles Act the Company shall not be liable in respect of death and/or bodily injury to any persons who is/are not employees of the Insured and not being carried for hire or reward, other than owner of the goods or representative of the owner of goods being carried in or upon or entering or mounting or alighting from the Insured vehicle described in the Schedule of this Policy.” 7. Mr. R. Saha, learned counsel in his usual fairness has submitted that the vehicle was insured by the respondent No.4 but the appellant did not give the due notice in terms of the policy when the accident took place. Even in filing the appeal, they took an inordinate time and as such the interest that would accrue may not be saddled to the respondent No.4. 8. Mr. S. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel, however, did not submit anything for the respondent No.1 but he has brought to the notice of this court that the respondent No.2 has attained majority in the meanwhile. This court will not enter upon that aspect as it does not fall for relevant consideration. From the outset the solitary ground that was projected to be considered by this court is in respect of the liability of payment of the awarded compensation. 9. Having appreciated the submission made by the learned counsel for the parties the terms and conditions of the insurance policy and the finding as returned by the Tribunal that the deceased as the representative of the owners of the GCI sheet was travelling by the vehicle, this court is of the view that the liability of making payment of the compensation squarely lies on the insurer and as such, the respondent No.4 is directed to pay the entire awarded compensation in the Tribunal within a period of two months from today. The prayer as made by Mr. The prayer as made by Mr. R. Saha, learned counsel for relieving the insurer from the liability of paying the interest in the circumstances of the case is not entertained as it cannot be stated that for default of the owner, the delay has taken place. The insurer cannot shirk off liability to produce the insurance papers in the inquiry. Having observed thus, this appeal stands allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.