S.G. SHAH, J.

1. Heard learned advocate Ms. Lilu K. Bhaya for the appellant - insurance company, learned advocate Ms. Mamta R. Vyas for respondent Nos.1, 4, 5 and 6 being original claimants, learned advocate Mr. H. G. Mazmudar for respondent No.9. Respondent Nos. 7 and 8 are though served, remain absent.

2. Perused the record. The appellant is insurance company of the vehicle involved in road accident. The appellant has challenged the judgment and award dated 21.04.1999 in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.736 of 1997 by the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal (Auxilliary), Bhavnagar. Such claim petition was preferred by legal heirs of Mohmmad Husen Haji Pyarali claiming an amount of Rs. 4,50,000/- as compensation from the driver, owner and insurer of vehicle involved in the accident which took place on 15.02.1994 in sim of village Fedhra on Ahmedabad - Dhandhuka road. It is undisputed fact that on 15.02.1994, deceased - victim who was doing a business of Potato had been to Mahuva to purchase Potatoes and other vegetables in wholesale and was returning with vegetables purchased by him in bulk by loading the same in truck No. GJ 1 T 4285 as owner of such goods. When such truck was going towards Dhandhuka, near village Fedhra, one another truck No.GJ 1 V 5414 was coming from opposite directions and it is pleaded by the claimants being legal heirs and dependent of such victim that because of rash and negligent driving of both the vehicles by its driver, both the vehicles had collided resulting into serious fatal injuries to the victim. There is no dispute so far as details of incident, involvement of vehicles and its result are concerned. Therefore, except recalling above referred details in brief, there is no need to reproduce more factual details which is otherwise well described in impugned award and pleadings.

3. The main contentions of the appellant - insurance company of one of such vehicles being truck No. GJ 1 T 4285 to the effect that there would not be any effective insurance policy in favour of the owner of the vehicle and, therefore, insurance company cannot be held liable and responsible to indemnify the owner, so as to pay the amount of compensation to the claimants. By impugned judgment and award, the tribunal has awarded in all Rs. 3,20,000/- with 12% interest to be paid by all the opponents jointly and severely and considering the involvement of both the vehicles and considering their clear negligence in incident, the tribunal had directed that insurance company of each vehicle has to bare the liability of award to the tune of Rs. 1,60,000/-. Therefore, practically the liability of the present appellant is only 50% i.e. Rs. 1,60,000/-. Similarly, for the claimants since there was no role of the victim in the incident, he being 3rd party to the incident, when this is a case of composite negligence between two tort-feesers, claimant is entitled to recover entire amount of compensation from either of the owner and its insurance company and, therefore, to some extent, this appeal and its determination would be more academic then effective when both the insurance company are nationalized insurance company being New India Assurance Company and United India Insurance Company for both the vehicles which are involved in the accident.

4. However, when the appellant - insurance company is keen to proceed further in such appeal, which is pending for almost two decades, the Court has no option but to deal with the rival submissions to arrive at proper conclusion on the issue raised by the appellant.

5. On perusal of available evidence on record, it becomes clear that when appellant has filed written submission on or about 7.2.1986 before the tribunal, except a general denial that the liability of the insurance company is limited as per the policy documents annexed, there is no specific pleadings which were ultimately taken as a ground for avoiding liability to pay compensation to the claimants. It is undisputed fact tha