( 1 ) THESE five C. M. As arise out of the common order dt. 27-6-2001 passed by the motor Vehicle Accidents Claims Tribunal- cum-the Court of District Judge, Ongole, in o. P. No. 722 of 2000 and batch. As these c. M. As arise out of one accident, they are being disposed of by this common judgment. ( 2 ) ABOUT forty passengers boarded the lorry bearing No. AP 7t 6549 on 25-5-2000. At about 2. 00 a. m. when the lorry reached near Railway gate at Rajupalem due to rash and negligent driving of the driver, it turned turtle resulting in death of some persons and injuries to some others. The claimants of the deceased in these cases filed different OPs before the Tribunal claiming compensation. The OPs were opposed by the New India assurance Company Limited, appellant herein, inter alia on the ground that the deceased in these cases were unauthorised passengers in the goods vehicle and therefore, the insurance policy does not cover the risk. The Tribunal rejected the contention of the Insurance Company and awarded compensation. The details of the ops, corresponding C. M. As, amount claimed and amount awarded are as under. Sl. no O. P. No. C. M. A. No. Amount Claimed Rs. Amount awarded Rs. 1. 722 of 2000 3146 of 2001 50,000 50,000 2. 727 of 2000 3192 of 2001 50,000 50,000 3. 723 of 2000 3226 of 2001 50,000 50,000 4. 724 of 2000 3324 of 2001 50,000 50,000 5. 726 of 2000 3348 of 2001 50,000 50,000 ( 3 ) THE Tribunal directed the amounts to be paid with interest at 9% from the date of petition within 30 days from the date of pronouncement of the order, and also directed that the Insurance Company and the owner shall pay interest at 12% per annum if they fail to pay the amount awarded. Aggrieved by the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, these C. M. As are filed by the Insurance Company. ( 4 ) THE learned counsel for the appellant raised two submissions. He would submit that all the deceased were gratuitous passengers and therefore they are not covered under the insurance policy. He would also submit that as per Section 171 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, the act) the Tribunal is empowered to award simple interest and there is no power to award penal interest. He would submit that all the deceased were gratuitous passengers and therefore they are not covered under the insurance policy. He would also submit that as per Section 171 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, the act) the Tribunal is empowered to award simple interest and there is no power to award penal interest. He placed reliance on united India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Sarat Kumar sahoo, Gouranga Katural v. Govinda mohapatra and New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Chand Rani in support of the said submission. ( 5 ) INSOFAR as the first point is concerned, the question is no more res integra as it is squarely covered by the judgment of the supreme Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Satpal Singh wherein their Lordships held that under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 all insurance policies covering third party risks are not required to exclude gratuitous passengers in the vehicle though vehicle is of any type or class. It was held: under clause (ii) of the proviso to section 95 (1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (for short "the old Act") the insurance policy was not required to cover liability in respect of the death of or bodily injury to persons who were gratuitous passengers of that vehicle. But the proviso to Section 147 (1) of the motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, "the new Act") shows that it is a recast provision by placing the erstwhile clause (iii) as the present clause (ii ). In other words, clause (ii) of the proviso to Section 95 (1) of the old Act is totally non-existent in the proviso to sec. l47 (l) of the new Act. Moreover, under Section 147 (2) of the new Act there is no upper limit for the insurer regarding the amount of compensation to be awarded in respect of death or bodily injury of a victim of the accident. It is, therefore, apparent that the limit contained in the old Act has been removed and the policy should insure the liability incurred and cover injury to any person including owner of the goods or his authorised representative carried in the vehicle. . . . . . . . . It is, therefore, apparent that the limit contained in the old Act has been removed and the policy should insure the liability incurred and cover injury to any person including owner of the goods or his authorised representative carried in the vehicle. . . . . . . . . Therefore, under the new act an insurance policy covering third- party risk is not required to exclude to exclude gratuitous passengers in a vehicle, no matter that the vehicle is of any type or class. ( 6 ) THE other submission of the learned counsel for the Insurance Company is that in view of the fact that the question decided in satpal Singh s case (4 supra) is referred to a larger Bench in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Asha Rani the decision in Satpal Singh s case (4 supra) is not a binding authority. ( 7 ) THIS submission of the learned counsel cannot be countenanced. In Branch Manager, new India Assurance Co. Ltd. Kurnool v. Vibudhi Durgaiah (unreported judgment in c. M. A. Nos. 95 of 1998 and batch, dated 20-8-2002) I considered this aspect of the matter. After referring to the judgments of the Supreme Court in State of Orissa v. Dandasi Sahu6 and State of Rajasthan v. R. S. Sharma and Co. , I held that when a judgment of the Supreme Court, which is binding on the High Court, is referred to a larger Bench by a subsequent Bench of equal strength, the same does not take away the binding effect of earlier Supreme Court judgment. Therefore, the decision in Satpal singh s Case (4 supra) is binding on this court and it would be improper for this court to ignore the binding authority. ( 8 ) THE second contention of the learned counsel regarding penal interest has force. Section 171 of the Act lays down that where the Tribunal passed an award for payment of compensation, the Tribunal in addition to the amount may direct payment of simple interest at such rate and from such date from the date of making claim or some other date as the Tribunal may deem fit. There is no power which inheres the Tribunal to award penal interest. There is no power which inheres the Tribunal to award penal interest. In Sarat Kumar Sahoo s case (1 supra) it was observed that the Award of the Tribunal indicating payment 12% interest in case of default in payment cannot be sustained. Similar view was taken in gouranga Katural s case (2 supra) and Chand rani s case (3 supra ). Therefore, the impugned Award of the Tribunal insofar as it directs payment of interest at 12% per annum after expiry of thirty days of the award is wholly illegal and unsustainable. ( 9 ) IN the result, the appeals are partly allowed modifying the Award to the effect that the insurer and the owner shall be liable to pay simple interest at 9% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realisation on the amount awarded by the Tribunal.