ORDER : SANJAY KAROL, J. Leave Granted. 2. The short question that arises for our consideration in this appeal is whether remand to the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal 1 [Fast Trach Court-I cum Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bhagalpur], by the High Court 2 [High Court of Judicature at Patna], on the question of liability, was justified, after the matter had remained pending before it for almost seven years? 3. The facts in which the question, as above, arises are that the deceased Arun Kumar was the husband of Most. Jyoti Devi and the father of Ankit, Anshu and Monu Kumar 3 [Collectively, claimant-appellants], while travelling atop a jeep bearing number BR-51-645, on 14th September 2004, that was transporting apples from the Bhagalpur Market to Banka, fell down along with a few bags of apples. The driver of the offending vehicle proceeded unperturbed without even stopping, allegedly leaving the injured behind. As a result, he passed away on 16th September 2004. The Tribunal quantified the amount of compensation at sum of Rs. 2,22,834/- payable to the claimant-appellants. Deducting the interim compensation already received by them, the amount that, as on the date of the order stood payable was Rs. 1,78,334/-. 4. Miscellaneous First Appeal no. 65 of 2012 was filed before the High Court seeking enhancement of compensation. The Court held: “At the very outset of the argument of this appeal, I find that though the learned Tribunal allowing the claim petition has found the claimants entitled to the compensation to the tune of Rs. 1, 72, 334/- along with the interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of the order, but it has not given any finding regarding the person liable for the payment of the aforesaid compensation to the claimants i.e. either the Insurance Company or the owner of the offending vehicle. In the facts and circumstances of the case, without going into the merit of the case, aforesaid judgment and award passed by the learned Tribunal is set aside and the case is remitted back to the learned Tribunal to pass fresh order fixing the liability of the payment of compensation within one month from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.” 5. Aggrieved by this order, the claimant-appellants are now before us, having filed this appeal with a delay of 1731 days. Aggrieved by this order, the claimant-appellants are now before us, having filed this appeal with a delay of 1731 days. Here itself it can be noted that although the primary issue is the justifiability of the remand order, the appeal has also been preferred on the quantum of compensation. Any compensation which may be enhanced by way of this judgment shall exclude the period of delay in filing the appeal, for the purpose of interest, for the party directed to pay should not be saddled with burden germane to the laxity of the claimants. 6. Turning to the issue at hand, we notice that although the Tribunal had framed an issue seeking to ascertain as to whether the offending vehicle was insured with the Insurance Company but, no finding was returned on such issue. Still further, we find that although the insurance company had raised specific pleas as to the violation of the terms of the agreement in as much as the driver had no valid license, the offending vehicle was plying without fitness certificate and route permit, the order of the Tribunal is conspicuously silent on them. It is but obvious that even if one the above claims of the Insurance Company could be proved by adequate evidence, the liability would shift away from the Company being solely liable to pay to instead being entitled to pay and recover or even, not pay at all, in which case the owner of the offending vehicle would be entirely responsible. 7. Although the order of the High Court reproduced supra does not record any of these reasons and only remands the case on the question of liability, we find ourselves to be in agreement with the eventual result of remand which would also be on points indicated above. 8. 7. Although the order of the High Court reproduced supra does not record any of these reasons and only remands the case on the question of liability, we find ourselves to be in agreement with the eventual result of remand which would also be on points indicated above. 8. However, we are of the considered view that the interest of justice and the parties would be compromised greatly if such a view is taken for the following reasons: (a) the accident in question is of the year 2004; (b) the Tribunal passed its award in 2011, after a period of seven years; (c) the appeal remained pending before the High Court for further period of seven years; (d) although the delay in approaching this Court is attributable to claimant appellants, the fact of the matter is that 22 years have passed form the date of accident and yet the claimant appellants have not received any compensation apart from interim compensation worth Rs.50,000/-; (e) Should the remand be ordered, it could be few years before the matter is finally laid to rest. 9. In the above circumstances, we direct the parties to file affidavits indicating the evidence they sought to lead originally before the Tribunal, inter-alia, contending that there had been breach of the conditions of the insurance agreement, the validity of license, the condition of the truck etc. Once this evidence is on record, this Court will, in the attending facts, determine the question of liability once and for all. This unusual step is required to be taken purely in the interest of the parties. The egregious cumulative delay hits at the welfare-oriented nature of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and the scheme for compensation provided thereunder. We are cognizant of the fact that this Court is not a court of fact however, to send the matter back at this stage would only lead to further injustice, compounding the suffering of the parties. 10. We may only observe that the errors and omissions in the order of the Tribunal, plainly visible to us have surprisingly missed the notice of the High Court, had the same been taken note of when the matter was first listed, we would have probably been dealing with the judgment of the High Court in the second round of litigation i.e., after the proper determination of amount of compensation and liability by the Tribunal. At that point in time both options were available either to remand the matter or ask the parties to submit evidence on affidavit and decide the matter. Because of the lapse of time, this Court is now constrained to take this extreme course of action. 11. The evidentiary gaps before the Tribunal are material only with respect to the issue of liability; however, the quantum of compensation can be determined based on the information already available on record. The compensation payable by the party to be decided subsequently is as under: CALCULATION OF COMPENSATION Compensation Heads Amount Awarded In Accordance with: Monthly Income Rs. 2232/- 4 [ https://betastate.bihar.gov.in/file_2/FileUpload/2025/Dec/03-Dec-2025/35/DyPage/dc87c44d-6492-4786-af8d-8919c6818a12.pdf ] Yearly Income Rs. 26,784/- Future Prospects (25%) (Age being 40) 26,784 + 6696 = Rs.33,480/- National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi (2017) 16 SCC 680 Para 37, 39, 41, 42 and 59.4 Sarla Verma vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and Anr. (2009) 6 SCC 121 Deduction (1/4) 33,480 – 8,370 = Rs. 25,110/- Multiplier (15) 25,110 X 15 = Rs.3,76,650/- Loss of Income of the Deceased Rs. 3,76,650/- Loss of Estate Rs.18,150/- National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi (2017) 16 SCC 680 Para 59.8 Funeral Expenses Rs.18,150/- Loss of Consortium 48,400 X 5 = Rs.2,42,000/- National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi (2017) 16 SCC 680 Para 59.8 United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Satinder Kaur, (2021) 11 SCC 780 Para 37.12 Rajwati alias Rajjo and Ors v. United India Insurance Company Ltd. and Ors. 2022 SCC Online SC 1699 Para 34 TOTAL Rs.6,54,950/- The difference in compensation is as under: MACT High Court This Court Rs.2,22,834 – Rs. 50,000 (Interim Compensation) = Rs. 1,72,834/- - Rs.6,54,950/- 12. Let the parties to the lis file requisite, detailed affidavits within a period of four weeks. List the matter for arguments on liability on 10th April 2026 before this bench.