ORDER 1. Leave granted. 2. The appellants are the son and daughter of the deceased who was traveling in the Tractor by sitting on the Mudguard which met with an accident. The claimants therefore, filed claim petition and claimed a compensation of Rs.7,00,000/- before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal ('the Tribunal'). The claim petition was allowed. The learned Tribunal held that the owner of the tractor as well as the insurer are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation of Rs.6,62,000.- with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition as against the claim of Rs.7,00,000/-. 3. Being aggrieved thereby, the United India Insurance Company Limited ('the Insurance Company') filed an appeal before the High Court. The learned single Judge of the High Court allowed the appeal and held that the Insurance Company was not liable to pay the compensation, it was only the owner of the vehicle who was liable to pay the compensation. 4. Being aggrieved thereby, the present appeal. We have heard Mr. T.R.B. Sivakumar, learned counsel appearing for the appellants and Mr. Rajesh Kumar Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the United India Insurance Company Limited. 5. We find no fault with the finding of the High Court that the Insurance Company could not be held liable for the payment of compensation in view of the judgment of 3-Judges' Bench of this Court in the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Asha Rani & Ors. reported in 2003 (2) SCC 223 . However, at the same time, we find that in view of the settled position, the High Court ought to have partly allowed the appeal. We may gainfully refer to the observations of this Court in similar facts at paragraph Nos.10 and 11 of the Judgment of this Court in Shivaraj vs. Rajendra and Anr. reported in 2018(10) SCC 432 . 6. As already observed, the facts in the present case are similar to the facts in the case of Shivaraj vs. Rajendra and Anr. (supra). 7. In the present case also, the High Court ought to have partly allowed the appeal preferred by the Insurance Company and ought to have directed it to pay the amount of compensation to the appellants and granted liberty to recover the same from the tractor owner. 8. We are, therefore, inclined to allow the appeal. (supra). 7. In the present case also, the High Court ought to have partly allowed the appeal preferred by the Insurance Company and ought to have directed it to pay the amount of compensation to the appellants and granted liberty to recover the same from the tractor owner. 8. We are, therefore, inclined to allow the appeal. We uphold the finding of the High Court that the Respondent No.1-Insurance Company cannot be held liable for payment of compensation. At the same time, we direct the Respondent No.1-Insurance Company to pay the compensation to the appellants-claimants as determined by the learned Tribunal with interest as specified in the order within three months from today with liberty to recover the said amount from the owner of the vehicle.