JUDGMENT Jaya Roy, J. – I have heard learned counsels appearing for the parties and with their consent this appeal is disposed of at the admission stage. 2. From the record, I find notice was issued to the Respondent no.2 in admission matter but the respondent no.2 namely Niranjan Singh owner of the Truck Trailor no. HR-38-5518 has not appeared in this Hon'ble Court inspite of proper service of notice to the said respondent. 3. This appeal is directed against the Judgment and award dated 8th October 2004 passed by the Motor Vehicle Accident claims Tribunal, Ranchi in Compensation Case No. 170 of 1999 whereby he has allowed the claim application holding that the opposite party no.1 and 2 (i.e. owner of the Truck-Trailor and the Insurance Co.) are directed to pay the compensation amount amounting Rs. 48,979/- to the claimant and directed that opposite party no.2 to make the payment of entire awarded money to the claimant and recover the same from the owner of the offending Truck Trailor opposite party no.1 after deducting its liability of Rs.6000/-, with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of the award till payment, failing which the opposite party no.2 will have to pay further interest @ 12% per annum. 4. The facts of the case lie in a narrow compass that on 22.4.99 the applicant's Vehicle Auto Rickshaw BR-14F-2729 was moving in a very normal speed and was going from Lalpur to Ratu Road as soon as the claimant's vehicle reached at the junction of Ratu Road and Kanke Road, all of a sudden a Truck Tailor bearing registration No. HR-38-5518 dashed against his Auto Rickshaw as a result which his Auto Rickshaw was badly damaged and the driver of the Vehicle had sustained multiple grievous injuries. On the basis of the F.I.R. by one Chhotu Kumar, a criminal case was registered as Kotwali P.S. Case No. 161/99 for the offence under Section 279/337/338/and 427 I.P.C. against the driver of the Truck Trailor. On request of the applicant one Sri S.K. Shukla, Ex-equipment Engineer, TISCO who is authorized surveyor was appointed and assessed the loss of the said Auto Rickshaw to the tune of Rs.48,979/- by his report dated 18.8.199 which is Ext-1. On request of the applicant one Sri S.K. Shukla, Ex-equipment Engineer, TISCO who is authorized surveyor was appointed and assessed the loss of the said Auto Rickshaw to the tune of Rs.48,979/- by his report dated 18.8.199 which is Ext-1. The claimant (Respondent no.1) the owner of the Auto Rickshaw filed claim application in the court of M.V.A.C., Tribunal, Ranchi against the owner of the offending Vehicle and the Insurance Company (the appellant). 5. The owner of the offending Vehicle and the insurance company filed written statement controverting the statements made in the claim petition, the insurance Company stated in the written statement that the truck trilor was insured with company subject to the term and condition of the insurance policy under the Act. The liability of the company is Rs.6,000/- as provided under Section 147 of the M.V. Act 1988. 6. The tribunal framed several issues, but the only issue which needs consideration by this court is issue no. 5, that – Whether the claimant is entitled for compensation? If yes, then to what extent and from whom? 7. In order to prove the case, the claimant has examined five witnesses including himself. C.W.5 is the Claimant and the survey report is Ext-1. The opposite party no.1 (Respondent no.2) has examined one witness who has admitted that auto rickshaw was damaged by his truck-trailor causing the accident. 8. The tribunal has recorded the finding about issue no.5 at para 11 of the award :- “The Surveyor has found total net loss after deducting the salvage value to Rs.48,979/-only and therefore in my opinion the claimant is entitled to recover this amount alone from the offending vehicle owner”. At para 12 of the award, the Tribunal has given the finding:- “Therefore, the opposite party no.2 being the Insurer is liable to pay a sum of Rs.6,000/-only as provided under Section 147 of the M.V. Act and rest loss of the claim has to be made good by the opposite party no.1-owner of the truck trailor”. But the tribunal at para 13 of the award has directed the opposite party no.2 Insurance Co. (Appellant) to pay the awarded amount of Rs.48,979/- to the claimant (Respondent no.1) and recover the same from the owner of the offending truck-trailor (Respondent no.2) after deducting its (Insurance Co's) liability of Rs.6000/-. 9. But the tribunal at para 13 of the award has directed the opposite party no.2 Insurance Co. (Appellant) to pay the awarded amount of Rs.48,979/- to the claimant (Respondent no.1) and recover the same from the owner of the offending truck-trailor (Respondent no.2) after deducting its (Insurance Co's) liability of Rs.6000/-. 9. The learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance company submitted that the learned Tribunal has erred in directing the Insurance Company to deposit whole awarded amount when the statutory liability of the Insurance Company under Section 147 (2) (b) of the M.V. Act is limited to rupees six thousand (Rs.6000/-) only. To support his contention, he cited before me the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of New India Assurance Co Ltd. Vs C.M. Jaya & Others reported in 2002 Accidents Claims Journal, Page-271, in which the Hon'ble Apex Court has held :- “That under Section 95(2) of Motor Vehicles Act 1939 the liability of insurance company of the truck was limited to Rs.50,000/- as per statute at the time of accident. Under a comprehensive policy liability of the insurance company is not unlimited qua third party”. 10. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that in the case at hand the liability of the insurance company is only limited Rs.6,000/- under Section 147 of the M.V. Act 1988 as such the court below could not have directed the appellant Insurance Co. to pay the awarded amount of Rs.48,979/- to the claimant and recover the same from the owner of the offending truck-trailor (Respondent no.2) after deducting its (Insurance Co's) liability of Rs.6,000/- from the insured the respondent no.2. 11. In this case none of the parties including the claimant has challenged the amount of Compensation awarded to the Claimants, the only question raised by the Insurance Company (the appellant) in respect of it liability and regarding the mode of payment. 12. The counsel for the appellant has admitted that the liability of the Insurance Co. is only Rs.6000/- in this case. 13. In view of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2004 Accidents Claims Journal, Page-428 National Insurance Co. 12. The counsel for the appellant has admitted that the liability of the Insurance Co. is only Rs.6000/- in this case. 13. In view of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2004 Accidents Claims Journal, Page-428 National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Baljit Kaur & others which has held at para 21 of the judgment:- “We, therefore, are of the opinion that the interest of justice will be sub-served if the appellant herein is directed to satisfy the awarded amount in favour of the claimant if not already satisfied and recover the same from the owner of the Vehicle.....”. In my view in the facts and circumstances of the present case, direction given by the tribunal to the Insurance Co. to make payment of the entire awarded money to the claimant and recover the money from the owner of the offending truck-trailor opposite party no.1 (Respondent no.2) in this appeal after deducting its liability of Rs.6,000/- with interest @ 9% per annum till payment is absolutely legal and valid. 14. Lastly, the learned counsel for the appellant has pointed out the Tribunal has awarded penal interest on the awarded amount @ 12% per annum to be paid by the Insurance Co. This is not permissible in law and to support his contention he placed before me the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court, in National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Keshav Bahadur & Others reported in 2004 Transport and Accident cases Vol-II page 1, at Para-12, page-7, in which the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that - “Though Section 110-CC of the Act (corresponding to Section 171 of the New Act) confers a discretion on the Tribunal to award interest, the same is meant to be exercised in cases where the claimant can claim the same as a matter of right. In the above background, it is to be judged whether a stipulation for higher rate of interest in case of default can be imposed by the Tribunal. Once the discretion has been exercised by the Tribunal to award simple interest on the amount of compensation to be awarded at a particular rate and from a particular date, there is no scope for retrospective enhancement for default in payment of compensation. No express or implied power in this regard can be culled out from Section 110-CC of the Act or Section 171 of the new Act. No express or implied power in this regard can be culled out from Section 110-CC of the Act or Section 171 of the new Act. Such a direction in the award for retrospective enhancement of interest for default in payment of the compensation together with interest payable thereon virtually amounts to imposition of penalty which is not statutorily envisaged and prescribed. It is, therefore, directed that the rate of interest as awarded by the High Court shall alone be applicable till payment, without the stipulation for higher rate of interest being enforced, in the manner directed by the Tribunal.” 15. I find on the other hand that the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Haji Zainullah Khan (dead) by LR's Vs Nagar Mahapalika, Allahabad, reported in 1994 Accidents Claims Journal, Page-993 has allowed the claim and awarded interest at the rate of 8 per cent from the date of application till order of the High Court and after that at 12 per cent till date of payment – Amount if not paid within a specified period, thereafter, shall carry interest at 15 per cent. Considering the fact that the Insurance Co. is only liable to pay Rs.6,000/- (Rs.Six Thousand), I set aside that part of the order by which penal interest @ 12 % per annum has been granted on the appellant -Insurance Co. 16. For the aforesaid reason, the impugned judgment and award is modified to the penal interest part only. 17. In view of the fact that the accident took place on 22.4.99 and liability of the Insurance Co. is only Rs.6,000/-, the appellant Insurance Co. is directed to deposit entire awarded amount (Rs.48,979/-) with interest @ of 9% per annum from 8.10.2004 till the payment by deposit of an account payee cheque in the name of Claimants in the tribunal below within three months from the order and immediately after deposit of the cheque and the tribunal after proper identification of the claimants, will hand over the cheque to them. 18. With aforesaid modification in the interest part of the order, this appeal is dismissed.