JUDGMENT : GITA GOPI, J. 1. Mr. Nanavati states that the appeal has been filed by the New India Assurance Company Ltd. only on the limited ground of error in the operative part of the order while in the judgment, the learned Tribunal has attributed the negligence of opponent no. 1 who is driver of truck no. HR-47 6753 and the owner of the said vehicle is opponent no. 2 and the insurance company of the said vehicle is the Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. 2. It appears that there are about 3 vehicles involved and the insurance company of truck no. GTY-5188 was arrayed as respondent no. 6 while the present appellant is the insurance company of truck bearing registration no. GJ-3 T-2050 who was opponent no. 7 in MACP No. 458/15 which was originally filed as MACP no. 485/06. Mr. Nanavati submitted that the Tribunal had specifically laid down the liability of opponent no. 1 by dealing with the issue of negligence. However, inadvertently in the operative order, the claimants were made entitled to recover the money from all the opponents. Mr. Nanavati submitted that the review application was also moved with the delay condonation application. However, the delay was not condoned. Against that Special Civil Application no. 16549/19 was moved with R/Civil Application no. 3394/19 in F/First Appeal no. 30391/19 which had now been culminated into First Appeal and after removing the office objections and on delay being condoned, the present First Appeal no. 2144/22 was registered. Learned advocate Ms. Ami Bhatt stated that the learned Tribunal has considered the negligence of opponent no. 1 driver of truck no. HR-47 6753 and she states that the said truck was insured with opponent no. 3-Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. 3. In the accident, 3 vehicles were involved. The learned Tribunal has categorically attributed the negligence of opponent no. 1. The owner is opponent no. 2 and the insurance company of the said vehicle is opponent no. 3. The operative order should have reflected the recovery from opponents no. 1, 2 and 3 since no liability had been laid down on the other two. No negligence has been attributed to other two vehicles and no liability had been laid down on the insurance company of those vehicles. 4. In the result, the operative order of MACP no. 458/15 stands modified. The applicant– claimant to recover Rs. 1, 2 and 3 since no liability had been laid down on the other two. No negligence has been attributed to other two vehicles and no liability had been laid down on the insurance company of those vehicles. 4. In the result, the operative order of MACP no. 458/15 stands modified. The applicant– claimant to recover Rs. 3,20,000/- with 9% interest and expenses from original opponents no. 1, 2 and 3 jointly and severally from the date of application till recovery. 5. Advocate Mr. Maulik Soni submits that Civil Application no. 1/23 has been moved in the present First Appeal for disbursing the amount and states that as the stay was in operation, the learned Tribunal had not disbursed the money. Registry is directed to list Civil Application no. 1/23 today. 6. It is stated by Advocate Ms. Ami Bhatt that the insurance company-opponent no. 3 has deposited the compensation amount before the Tribunal. In view of the same, let the Tribunal disburse the money in accordance to ratio laid down in the award. 7. In the result, if at all any recovery warrant is issued against any other respondents then it stands canceled. Accordingly, the present appeal as well as connected applications are disposed of. Registry is directed to send the record and proceedings back to the Tribunal forthwith.