JUDGMENT & ORDER : 1. Heard Mr. Kohinoor N. Bhattacharji, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, Bharati Axa General Insurance Company Ltd. as well as Mr. S. Lodh, learned counsel appearing for the respondents No.1, 2, 3 and 4, the claimants. There is no representation from the respondent No.5 despite due notice from this court. 2. The judgment and award dated 13.08.2013 delivered in T.S.(MAC)93/2010 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, South Tripura, Udaipur, as it then was, was challenged on the solitary ground that the Tribunal has without proper appreciation of the limits of liability in terms of the insurance policy, has directed the appellant to pay the awarded sum to the respondents No.1 to 4. In the impugned judgment, the Tribunal has observed as follows : “Now, question is who will pay the compensation The admitted fact is that the vehicle was covered by insurance policy. Insurance policy certificate, driving licence of the driver namely Rana Pratap Roy, Memorandum of Agreement and money receipt are produced by the owner of the vehicle and all these documents are exhibited and marked Exbt.A series, on admission by parties. From the photo copy of the policy certificate it is found that the policy was valid from 17.11.2009 to 16.11.2010. The date of accident is 20.04.2010. It is also found that the policy was covered under third party risk and Iman Das, since deceased, was also third party, who suffered accidental injury and died due to that accident. Therefore, BHARTI AXA GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., O.P. No.2 is under full liability to pay the amount of compensation to the claimant petitioners. Accordingly, the liability is fixed up and direction is given to the Insurance Co. to pay the awarded amount of Rs.4,85,000/-.” 3. Mr. Kohinoor N. Bhattacharji, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that the said direction is wholly uncalled for as the deceased was never a third party. According to the claimants, the respondents No.1 to 4 herein, the deceased, was travelling by the vehicle bearing registration No.TR-03B-1845 [Tractor] owned by the respondent No.5 and the said Tractor was not a passenger vehicle. On 20.04.2010 when the deceased was travelling by the said Tractor, it met an accident and the deceased received the fatal injuries all over his body. Immediately, he was rushed to the GBP hospital, but in that hospital the deceased succumbed to the injuries. 4. Mr. On 20.04.2010 when the deceased was travelling by the said Tractor, it met an accident and the deceased received the fatal injuries all over his body. Immediately, he was rushed to the GBP hospital, but in that hospital the deceased succumbed to the injuries. 4. Mr. S. Lodh, learned counsel appearing for the claimant-respondents, has fairly submitted that in view of the said statement made in the claim petition, the deceased cannot be treated as “the third party’. Hence the statutory policy under Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act cannot cover the deceased as “the third party”. Since the Tractor is not a passenger vehicle the deceased has to be treated as the gratuitous passenger travelling by the said Tractor. 5. Mr. Bhattacharji, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that since the deceased was a gratuitous passenger he cannot be treated as “the third party” and the policy will not cover his death and the resultant damages. In this regard he has referred the insurance policy issued by the insurance company (part of Exbt.A series), where the limits of liability has been specifically provided. Except the personal coverage for the owner-driver and the coverage for the third party and the third party property, the said policy does not indemnify any other damages. As such, the insurance company has been made liable without any basis and hence it is required that the finding in this regard be interfered with. 6. Persuaded by this submission, this court is of the view that even though the policy was in force on the day of accident but the damages for death or the damage in general cannot be recovered from the insurance company inasmuch as the liability of the appellant, the insurer is limited to what has been provided under the said insurance policy. While observing this, this court is of the view that the liability of making payment of the award shall squarely fall on the shoulder of the respondent No.5, the owner of the Tractor. Thus, the respondent No.5 shall pay the entire award to the respondents No.1 to 4 (the claimants) who have lost their dependancy. There is no challenge by any party in respect of the manner of assessment of the award or the quantum of the award. Hence this court will not direct its inquiry in that aspect at all. Thus, the respondent No.5 shall pay the entire award to the respondents No.1 to 4 (the claimants) who have lost their dependancy. There is no challenge by any party in respect of the manner of assessment of the award or the quantum of the award. Hence this court will not direct its inquiry in that aspect at all. While observing so, it must be clearly mentioned that the respondent No.5 is wholly responsible to pay the awarded sum to the respondents No.1 to 4 and the said sum of RS.4,85,000/- (rupees four lakhs eighty five thousand) along with interest @ 9% per annum shall be paid within a period of 2(two) months from today. It appears that the penal interest has been imposed by the Tribunal in excess of its jurisdiction as provided under Section 171 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. This court, having noted that imposition of penal interest, is persuaded to interfere with the said imposition. Accordingly, the direction to pay interest @ 9% per annum in the event of not paying the awarded compensation within a period of 2(two) months is set aside. The sum of Rs.25,000/- (rupees twenty five thousand) as deposited by the appellant shall be returned following the proper procedure 7. Having held so, this appeal stands allowed for a limited purpose as stated above. The LCRs be send down. A copy of this order be furnished to the learned counsel for the parties.