MACApp. 77/2000 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMITAVA ROY The subject matter of assailment is the award dated 20/12/1999 p assed by the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Mangaldoi, Darrang, in MAC Case No. 33/1992 registered on an application by the present respondent No. 1 s eeking compensation for the accidental death of her husband Abul Hussain on 11/3 /1992 at about 12.30 A.M. while he was travelling in Truck No. ASZ 6151 as a lab ourer. The application disclosed that the accident involved another vehicle bein g Truck No. AMY 3742. Apart from the other heirs and legal representatives of th e deceased, United India Insurance Company, respondent No. 10 herein and the app ellant were impleaded as opposite party. By the award aforementioned, an amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- was granted by the lear ned Tribunal apportioning equally the liability therefor between the two Insuran ce Companies as impleaded. Interest at the rate 15% per annum from the date of f iling of the claim petition till realisation was also awarded. Being aggrieved, the appellant impleaded as opposite party No. 6 in the claim proceeding, is befo re this Court contending inter alia that as at all relevant times it in fact had not been the insurer of the Truck No. AMY 3742 as erroneously mentioned in the claim application, the learned Tribunal had grossly erred in law as well as on f acts in making it equally liable along with the other insurer to meet the amount of compensation awarded. Significantly, as is submitted at the Bar, the owner of the Truc k No. AMY 3742, Shri Sailendra Baruah, as named in the claim application, had en tered appearance in the claim proceeding and had filed his written statement dis closing the appellant to be the insurer of his vehicle. On receipt of the notice of the instant appeal, one Shri Shailadhar Baruah, on being served therewith on 7/5/2008, has submitted an affidavit on 29/1/2009 claiming himself to be the ow ner of the Truck No. AMY 3742. He inter alia has stated that he had not been imp leaded as opposite party in the claims proceedings and that the award had been o btained by fraudulently filing the vakalatnama and the written statement on his behalf by forging his signature. He in categorical terns stated on oath that the Truck No. AMY 3742 was at the time of the accident actually insured with the Un ited India Insurance Company Limited, respondent No. 10. In view of this stand of the respondent No. 13, the respondent N o. 10 when confronted therewith, its learned Counsel sought time to obtain instr uctions and eventually vide affidavit dated 19/1/2010 it admitted that both the vehicles involved in the accident at the time thereof had been insured with it. Whereas Mr. Phukan has urged that in view of the above disclosur e, the appellant, by no means can be held to be responsible to bear any portion of the amount of compensation, Mr. Dutta has contended that as it was the claima nt who was responsible for the mix-up, the respondent No. 10 ought not to be sad dled with the interest as awarded by the learned Tribunal. Mr. Islam, the learne d Counsel for the respondent claimant, however, has urged to the contrary and ha s insisted on the grant of interest as awarded. Without prejudice to this howeve r he has pleaded that in any view of the matter, the respondent No. 10 cannot be relieved of the liability to pay the interest on and from the date from which t he notice of the instant appeal had been served on the respondent No. 13, the ow ner of the Truck No. AMY 3742. It is submitted at the Bar that during the penden cy of the appeal, the owner of the Truck No. AMY 3742, Shri Sailendra Baruah had expired and vide order dated 4/10/2010 passed by this Court, his heirs and lega l representatives have been impleaded as respondents 13(1), 13(2) and 13(3). Upon hearing the learned Counsel for the parties and on a consid eration of the materials on record presently available, the appellant, can by no means be held to be liable to be directed to pay the amount of compensation in terms of the impugned award. As in view of the overwhelming materials on record, it is established that, it, at the relevant time was not the insurer of the veh icle AMY 3742, the direction contained in the impugned award, so far as it saddl es it with the liability to discharge 50% of the compensation amount, is unsusta inable in law and is thus interfered with. On the aspect of misrepresentation of the owner of the Truck AMY 3742, the learned Tribunal would conduct a discrete enquiry and submit a report within one month from today. Qua the debate on the a spect of interest, in the facts and circumstances of the case, it is apparent th at the confusion had arisen due to the failure on the part of the respondent cla imant to furnish correct facts and particulars with regard to the insurer of the Truck No. AMY 3742. The respondent No. 10, which in all fairness has owned itse lf to be the insurer of that vehicle, in the opinion of this Court, ought not to be fully laden with the liability of interest. It is entitled to such a relief, as in the attendant facts it cannot be held to be responsible for the delay tha t had occurred in between. In the fitness of things, therefore, it is ordered th at the interest of 15% per annum on the awarded amount would be paid by it on an from 29/1/2009, the date on which the respondent No. 13 had filed its affidavit in the instant appeal disclosing the necessary facts establishing that the resp ondent No. 10 was the insurer of the said vehicle. The appeal is thus allowed. The award stands modified to the ext ent that the entire amount of compensation granted would now be paid by the resp ondent No. 10 i.e. United India Insurance Company, Mangaldoi Branch, Darrang, As sam. This respondent would pay full amount of the principal sum awarded with int erest @ 15% on 50% thereof from the date of filing of the application thereof ti ll the payment thereof. Additionally it would pay interest at the same rate on t he remaining 50% from 29/1/2009 till the realisation thereof. Needless to say, t he payments already made would stand adjusted against the amount computable in t erms of the aforementioned directions. The statutory amount said to have been de posited by the appellant insurer before the learned Tribunal would be permitted to be withdrawn by it. No costs.