The main legal point established is that under the Motor Vehicles Act, the insurance company is responsible for indemnifying the insured in cases of negligence resulting in accidents.

( 1 ) SINCE these appeals arise out of common award, they are heard together. Misc. Appeal Nos. 650, 652, 653 and 655 of 2001.

( 2 ) ONLY question involved in these appeals is whether the appellant insurance company has rightly been held responsible to indemnify the insured.

( 3 ) COUNSEL for the appellant insurance company Mr. B. N. Malhotra has submitted that from the evidence on record, these are the cases of composite negligence of drivers of two vehicles. As such apart from the appellant insurance company, respondent national Insurance Co. Ltd. is also jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation. Respondent National Insurance Co. Ltd. has insured the offending jeep bearing registration No. MP 07-H 1828 which had dashed against the tanker bearing registration no. HNU 9877 insured with the appellant insurance company.

( 4 ) WE have heard counsel for the parties and perused the evidence on record.

( 5 ) IN evidence, witnesses have deposed that while the tanker lorry was overtaking another vehicle, it collided with the jeep which was coming from opposite direction. It is true that this is a case of head-on collision, but the fact remains that when the tanker was overtaking another vehicle, said tanker was on the right side of the road, whereas the jeep was on its left side. Since the accident has occurred while overtaking the vehicle, owner and driver of the tanker will be jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation and the appellant insurance company is bound to indemnify the insured. In the circumstances of the case, the appellant insurance company has rightly been held responsible to pay the compensation.

( 6 ) CROSS-OBJECTIONS have been filed by the respondent National Insurance Co. Ltd. for refund of the amount of Rs. 25,000 deposited by it towards no fault liability. Since the jeep was also involved in the accident and compensation has been deposited towards no fault liability, respondent national Insurance Co. Ltd. is not entitled for any refund. Cross-objections of the respondent National Insurance Co. Ltd. are dismissed.

( 7 ) CROSS-OBJECTION has been filed by the claimants in Misc. Appeal No. 652 of 2001. Mr. B. D. Verma, the learned counsel appearing for the claimants does not wish to press the cross-objection as he has filed separate appeal against the award. Therefore, the cross-objection is dismissed.

( 8 ) THE Claims Tribunal has directed that the claimants will be entitled for interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum if the compensation is paid within one month and if the compensation is not paid within one month, then claimants will be entitled for interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum. Since penal condition could not be imposed, therefore, order passed by the claims Tribunal directing the payment of interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum is set aside and it is directed that claimants will be entitled for interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum.

( 9 ) MISC. Appeal Nos. 650, 652, 653 and 655 of 2001 have no merit and are dismissed with the aforesaid modification in the order of the Claims Tribunal. Misc. Appeal No. 674 of 2001:

( 10 ) THIS appeal is filed by the widow of deceased Daulatram.

( 11 ) IT is contended by claimant that the deceased was running a shop in the name and style 'maa Vaishno Devi Readymade stores' and was earning Rs. 4,000-5,000 per month. Claims Tribunal has found that in the absence of any record pertaining to the shop, the income of the deceased has not been proved and determined notional income of the deceased at Rs. 15,000 per annum. Since the deceased and the claimant had no issue and the family consisted of husband and wife, therefore, Claims tribunal has determined dependency of the widow at Rs. 7,500 per annum.

( 12 ) MS. Suraj Devi Agrawal, learned counsel appearing for insurance company, respondent No. 3, has submitted that the award is just and proper.

( 13 ) WE have perused the evidence on record. It is true that there is