( 1 ) ). THIS appeal, with the consent of the learned advocates for the parties, can be finally disposed of at the admission stage.

( 2 ) ). Shri Harit Bhatt, learned Counsel for the appellant and Shri M. T. M. Hakim, learned Counsel for respondent Nos. 1 to 4 and Shri M. P. Prajapati, learned Counsel for respondent No. 5 have been heard.

( 3 ) ). The scope of inquiry in this appeal is very limited. Learned Counsel for the appellant has frankly conceded that the quantum of compensation cannot be challenged by the insurance company, the appellant. He has, however, contended that since the insurance company was impleaded before the Tribunal after about ten years, there can be no liability of the insurance company to pay interest from the date of the claim petition till it was impleaded. That is the only point which requires examination. Certain dates are material. The accident occurred on 2nd March, 1986. The claim petition was filed on 30th July, 1986. The appellant. Oriental Insurance Company was impleaded before the tribunal on 29th March, 1996. After impleadment, the tribunal issued notice to the appellant on 30th April, 1996. On these facts, learned Counsel for the appellant contended that since about ten years elapsed between the date of accident and notice, the insurance company cannot be held liable for payment of interest during this interval. He has placed reliance upon the judgment of the learned single Judge rendered in First Appeal no. 851 of 1997, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Diwaliben Jayantilal and Ors. , decided on 13th November, 1997. In this case, the facts were that the accident took place on 26th May, 1988 while the insurance company was impleaded as party to the proceedings on 8-5-1995 i. e. , after seven years from the date of accident. On these facts, and referring to the provisions of Sec. 149 (2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, the learned single Judge was of the view that since the insurance company had no notice of the fact of the vehicular accident and of the petition having been filed for the purpose of compensation by the injured person, interest cannot be awarded against the insurance company. The learned single Judge was further of the view that from the language of this section prima facie, it appears that the insurance company cannot be saddled with the liability prior to the period beginning from 8th May, 1995. With this finding, the award of the tribunal was modified by the learned single Judge.

( 4 ) ). As against this, learned Counsel Shri Hakim has brought to our notice Apex Courts judgment in Urmila Pandey and Ors. v. Khalil Ahmad and Ors. , 1994 (4) SCC 204 and has urged that in this case, the insurance cover was filed before the Apex Court after 25 years and on these facts, the apex Court reversing the judgment of the High Court and the Court below, awarded compensation as well as interest @ 18% p. a. against the insurance company.

( 5 ) ). We have considered both these cases and the factual aspects of the case before us. It is undisputed that the accident took place on 2nd March, 1986. It is equally undisputed that the claim petition was preferred on 30th July, 1986. There is no dispute regarding the fact that the appellant, insurance company, was impleaded on 29th March, 1996 and thereafter, the tribunal gave notice to the appellant on 30th April, 1996. There was, thus, about ten years delay in impleading the insurance company, appellant. However, since the impleadment was granted on 29th March, 1996, it will relate back to the date of presentation of the claim petition i. e. 30th July, 1996 and it will be deemed by a fiction of law that the insurance company was already before the tribunal on 30th July, 1986. There seems to be no reason to distinguish compensation and interest and hold that the compensation is payable by the insurance company from the date of the petition but not the interest.

( 6 ) ). We have also examined the provisions of Sec. 171 of the Motor Veh