B. P. DAS, J. ( 1 ) THE State of Orissa has filed the aforesaid two appeals challenging the common judgment dated 31. 3. 1992 passed by the 2nd Motor Accidents Claims tribunal (S. D.), Berhampur, in M. A. C. No. 327 of 1988 (339 of 1987) and No. 83 of 1988 (196 of 1987) respectively awarding compensation of Rs. 2,60,000 for the death of deceased Prakash Chandra Padhi and Rs. 30,000 in favour of the injured, giridhari Palai and saddling the liability of payment of the aforesaid compensation on the present appellant. ( 2 ) THE brief facts leading to the present appeals may be stated thus: on 24. 5. 1987 the deceased Prakash chandra Padhi, while posted as Officer-in-charge of Kodala Police Station, Orissa, requisitioned a private vehicle, namely, a mini truck, bearing registration No. OSG 1974 belonging to one Kailash Chandra nayak for deployment on official duty as no Government vehicle was then available in the police station. The deceased along with his staff proceeded in the said vehicle with its driver to Polosara on official duty and on the way near Budhamba on Aska-Khallikote main road at about 11 p. m. , the vehicle met with an accident when it dashed against a culvert and capsized. As a result of such accident, while the Officer-in-charge died at the spot, other occupants of the vehicle sustained multiple bodily injuries. The legal heirs of the deceased, i. e. , the widow, a minor son and a daughter (respondent Nos. 1 to 3 in M. A. No. 381 of 1992) and the injured persons filed separate claim cases being M. A. C. Nos. 327 of 1988 (339 of 1987), 232 of 1987 (136 of 1987), 231 of 1988 (140 of 1987), 78 of 1988 (139 of 1987), 83 of 1988 (196 of 1987), 138 of 1988 (358 of 1987), 77 of 1988 (138 of 1987), 93 of 1988 (363 of 1987) and 105 of 1988 (137 of 1987 ). By a common judgment dated 16. 8. 1989, the tribunal disposed of the aforesaid cases by holding that the death of the deceased and injuries to the injured persons were caused in the accident which occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle and awarded compensation in favour of the claimants in the different cases. 8. 1989, the tribunal disposed of the aforesaid cases by holding that the death of the deceased and injuries to the injured persons were caused in the accident which occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle and awarded compensation in favour of the claimants in the different cases. The Tribunal also held that as the vehicle had been requisitioned by the Officer-in-charge of the police station for official purpose, the State of Orissa was liable to pay the compensation to the claimants. Against the aforesaid judgment and award passed by the Tribunal, the State of orissa preferred appeals being M. A. Nos. 527 and 535 of 1989 on the ground that the vehicle being insured with the insurer, the State Government could not be saddled with the liability of payment of compensation as there was nothing in the judgment to show that the vehicle was requisitioned by the person having the authority. Considering the submission of the State, this court disposed of the aforesaid appeals and remanded the matters to the Tribunal for a fresh hearing strictly on the question whether the Officer-in-charge had any authority to requisition the vehicle. The court, however, confirmed the determination of quantum of just compensation and the finding regarding negligent driving by the driver employed by the owner of the vehicle. After remand, the Tribunal heard all the cases together and disposed of the same by common judgment dated 31. 3. 1992 holding that State Government was liable to pay the amount of compensation awarded to the respective claimants. Against the aforesaid judgment of the Claims Tribunal, the State Government preferred separate appeals being M. A. Nos. 379 to 387 of 1992. Except the present two appeals, i. e. , m. A. Nos. 381 and 387 of 1992, the other appeals have been either withdrawn or dismissed, as would appear from the memo filed by the learned Addl. Standing counsel. 379 to 387 of 1992. Except the present two appeals, i. e. , m. A. Nos. 381 and 387 of 1992, the other appeals have been either withdrawn or dismissed, as would appear from the memo filed by the learned Addl. Standing counsel. ( 3 ) IN the present appeals, the State has challenged the awards mainly on the ground that admittedly the driver employed by the owner of the vehicle was driving the vehicle at the time of the accident and, according to Motor Vehicles Act, tortious liability is to be saddled with the owner and since the vehicle in question met with the accident due to negligence of the driver, the owner of the vehicle is liable to pay the compensation and the police raiding party being the gratuitous passengers are liable to get the compensation from the owner. According to the counsel for the State, the owner is liable to be indemnified by the insurer in terms of the policy of insurance. In this regard my attention is drawn to the judgment of the Tribunal wherein it was found that respondent No. 3, the present appellant, had admitted that the offending vehicle was requisitioned by the Government for official duty. Basing upon the aforesaid finding, the Tribunal ultimately held that it is the appellant, who was liable to pay the compensation and not the owner of the vehicle. It is to be noted here that after the remand by this court, the State government did not adduce any further evidence before the Tribunal and relied upon the evidence already adduced during the initial stage of the proceeding. It is a fact that the requisition of a vehicle by the government is a compulsory one and no owner can raise any objection in that regard and after a vehicle is requisitioned, the owner will have no control over the vehicle while the same remains in the possession of the Government. It is a fact that the requisition of a vehicle by the government is a compulsory one and no owner can raise any objection in that regard and after a vehicle is requisitioned, the owner will have no control over the vehicle while the same remains in the possession of the Government. ( 4 ) CONDITION No. 7 of the General Exceptions of the insurance policy provides: "general Exceptions: The company shall not be liable under the policy in respect of (7) any accident, loss, damage or the liability caused, sustained or incurred during the period of requisition or commandeering by the Government for any purpose; under sub-section (1) of section 146 of the motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (section 94 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939), no person can use or allow ariy other person to use the motor vehicle in a public place unless there is in force in relation to the use of the vehicle by that person, a policy of insurance complying with the requirements of Chapter XI. In view of sub-section (2) of section 146 of the new Act, the aforesaid provision is not applicable to any vehicle owned by the Central or State Government and used for Government purpose. Sub-section (3) vests power in the appropriate Government to exempt from the operation of sub-section (1) of section 146 any vehicle even owned by local authority or any transport undertaking. Section 146 of the 1988 Act requires that a policy of insurance must provide insurance against any liability to third party incurred by the person using the vehicle. But there is no such requirement so far as the vehicle owned by the Central government or State Government is concerned. Liability of the vehicle requisitioned by the Government is not the vehicle that had been hired by a third party and as the factum of requisition has been admitted and a positive finding to that effect has been recorded by the Tribunal, it can safely be inferred that for the purpose of user, the owner of the vehicle was the State Government at that point of time. So, the liability of the insurance company under section 146 of the Act stood transferred to the State government. So, the liability of the insurance company under section 146 of the Act stood transferred to the State government. The finding of the Tribunal is, therefore, correct in the sense that as per condition No. 7 of the exception clause of the policy of insurance, the insurance company cannot be held liable for payment of damages or loss caused to the vehicle when requisitioned by the Government for official duty. ( 5 ) IN this regard, it will be apt to refer to the decision of this court in National insurance Co. Ltd. v. Durdadahya Kumar samal, 1988 ACJ 540 (Orissa), wherein it was held thus:"the word 'owner' in this case is to be liberally interpreted. When a vehicle had been requisitioned, the Collector for the purpose of liability becomes the owner of the vehicle. In a vehicle requisitioned, the driver remains under the control of the Collector and by such driving the vehicle he can be accepted to have been employed by the Collector. Thus, the Collector would be vicariously liable for the act of the driver in the present case. "a Full Bench of the Patna High Court in ram Narayan Singh v. Election Commission, 1997 ACJ 67 (Patna), relying upon the decision of the Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra v. Kanchanmala Vijaysing shirke, 1995 ACJ 1021 (SC), as well as the decision of this court in National insurance Co. Ltd. v. Durdadahya (supra)and also having regard to clause No. 7 of the General Exceptions of the insurance policy, concluded that in such cases the state Government alone could be held liable for compensation for the loss and damage caused to the vehicle on account of accident. ( 6 ) AT this stage, it would be worthwhile to indicate that in Vijaysing Shirke's case, 1995 ACJ 1021 (SC), a Government vehicle, while being driven by an unauthorised person, met with an accident and on behalf of the State of Maharashtra, a plea was taken that the driver of the vehicle under influence of liquor had handed over the key to a clerk of the office to drive the vehicle. The accident took place by the negligence of a person who was not at all authorised by the Government to drive the vehicle. The accident took place by the negligence of a person who was not at all authorised by the Government to drive the vehicle. The Apex Court while rejecting the plea of the State Government held that since the accident took place when the vehicle was on Government duty, therefore, the State cannot escape its vicarious liability to pay the compensation to the victims. ( 7 ) IN view of the aforesaid factual and legal position, in the case at hand I find that the Tribunal has exhaustively dealt with the matter and proceeded correctly by saddling the liability of payment of compensation on the present appellant, State government of Orissa. Accordingly, the appeals are devoid of any merit and the same are dismissed without any order as to costs. ( 8 ) THE entire awarded amount has already been deposited in this court. From the record placed before me, it appears that Rs. 4,26,082 has been deposited in this court on 22. 6. 1998 and the same was invested in fixed deposit on 15. 7. 1998 in the Bank of India. The Tribunal directed that unless the awarded amounts are deposited within three months from the date of the award, the amounts shall carry interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of respective claim petitions till realisation. As I find the claim petitions were filed respectively on 4. 11. 1987 and 17. 7. 1987 and the awarded amounts were deposited on 22. 6. 1998. The State Government is, therefore, to pay interest on the awarded amounts at the rate of 12 per cent per annum. Let the balance amount of interest for the period commencing from the date of the claim petitions till 22. 6. 1998 be deposited in this court within a period of three months hence. So far as M. A. No. 381 of 1992 is concerned, out of the awarded amount of compensation and the interest accrued thereon, 25 per cent each shall be kept in fixed deposit in the name of the minor son and daughter of the deceased, i. e. , respondent nos. 2 and 3, in any nationalised bank for a period of ten years and 40 per cent shall be invested in a fixed deposit in the name of the widow of the deceased, i. e. , respondent No. 1, for a period of ten years. 2 and 3, in any nationalised bank for a period of ten years and 40 per cent shall be invested in a fixed deposit in the name of the widow of the deceased, i. e. , respondent No. 1, for a period of ten years. The balance 10 per cent shall be paid to respondent No. 1 in shape of an account payee cheque. So far as M. A. No. 387 of 1992 is concerned, the awarded amount shall be disbursed to the claimant-respondent No. 1. Appeals dismissed.