JUDGMENT : Heard Mr. P. Gautam, learned counsel appearing for the appellant-Insurance Company as well as Mr. R Dutta, learned counsel appearing for the owner-respondent. 2. At the outset, Mr. Dutta, learned counsel for the owner-respondent has submitted that the case in hand is squarely covered by the judgment and order of this Court dated 16.05.2017 passed in MAC Appeal 20/2014 and other similar cases. 3. Perused the judgment and order dated 16.05.2017. 4. Mr. Gautam, learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company has candidly submitted that the vehicle bearing registration No.AS01-Y-7379 (Bus) met with an accident on 08.08.2012 at Tongsen on NH 44 under Khlieriat police station under East Jayantia Hills, Meghalaya. As a result, 28 passengers died on the spot and 27 passengers including the driver of the vehicle had sustained grievous injuries. From the number of passengers died and injured, Mr. Gautam, learned counsel has submitted that it has become clear that the vehicle was carrying more than its permitted capacity as allowed by the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. It is clear that the Bus at the relevant point of time was carrying 55 numbers of passengers. His bone of contention is that the Bus was overloaded as it exceeded its limit of carrying passengers. So, the appellant-insurance company is not liable to ensure payment towards the passengers who were being carried beyond the limited capacity of 38+1 passengers. 5. Mr. Dutta, learned counsel for the owner-respondent has submitted that Bharat Chandra Shil (now deceased) was one of them. The claimant-respondents have claimed compensation of Rs.35,20,000/- for the death of Bharat Chandra Shil. The learned Tribunal has awarded Rs.9,03,600/- as compensation. He further submits that the plea of the Insurance Company, appellant herein, is based upon the first information report that cannot be relied upon by the Tribunal for the purpose of awarding compensation. Mr. Dutta has further denied that the said vehicle was carrying excessive passengers beyond the permitted limit and there is no proof of that and the Insurance Company-appellant has failed to substantiate their plea before the learned Tribunal. 6. Despite the order passed by this Court, at the outset, it is pertinent to mention here that neither of the learned counsels have been able to produce the list of cases before this Court when the matter is taken up for hearing. 6. Despite the order passed by this Court, at the outset, it is pertinent to mention here that neither of the learned counsels have been able to produce the list of cases before this Court when the matter is taken up for hearing. It appears that the appellant has placed reliance on the first information report as the appellant is quite apprehensive that there are possibilities of filing of more claim applications by the passengers who suffered injury or by the dependents of the deceased persons. In view of that, in every case, the insurance company shall be liable for payment and in that course they may have to pay more than what they are liable to pay under the policy. 7. There is no dispute that at the time of accident the vehicle was having valid insurance policy under No. 203000/31/11/6300010367 and that was valid from 17.02.2012 to midnight of 16.02.2013. Mr. Gautam, learned counsel has submitted that since the vehicle has met the accident during the period of insurance, in the ordinary course, the insurance company is to indemnify the owner respondent in respect of the damages, but when there is a clear breach of the route permit covered under Section 149(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the Insurance Company cannot be held liable for making payment of compensation in favour of the passengers travelling by the said bus. 8. Mr. Dutta, learned counsel for the owner-respondent has submitted that if any liability accrues from the said accident the initial burden lies upon the Insurance Co. to make payment for cost of damages that would be ascertained by the Tribunal to the extent of coverage as laid down in the insurance policy. 9. The issue, therefore, falls within a very narrow campus as to whether the appellant as the insurer will be liable for making payment of the compensation in all the claim cases from the said accident that may be posted by the Tribunal, and if any, to what extent. 10. Mr. Gautam, learned counsel has drawn my attention to a decision of the Apex Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Anjana Shyam and Ors. reported in 2007 AIR SCW 5237 where the Apex Court has enunciated the law to resolve this small but complex issue in the following manner:- “16. 10. Mr. Gautam, learned counsel has drawn my attention to a decision of the Apex Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Anjana Shyam and Ors. reported in 2007 AIR SCW 5237 where the Apex Court has enunciated the law to resolve this small but complex issue in the following manner:- “16. Then arises the question, how to determine the compensation payable or how to quantify the compensation since there is no means of ascertaining who out of the overloaded passengers constitute the passengers covered by the insurance policy as permitted to be carried by the permit itself? As this Court has indicated, the purpose of the Act is to bring benefit to the third parties who are either injured or dead in an accident. It serves a social purpose. Keeping that in mind, we think that the practical and proper course would be to hold that the insurance company, in such a case, would be bound to cover the higher of the various awards and will be compelled to deposit the higher of the amounts of compensation awarded to the extent of the number of passengers covered by the insurance policy. Illustratively, we may put it like this. In the case on hand, 42 passengers were the permitted passengers and they are the ones who have been insured by the insurance company. 90 persons have either died or got injured in the accident. Awards have been passed for varied sums. The Tribunal should take into account, the higher of the 42 awards made, add them up and direct the insurance company to deposit that lump sum. Thus, the liability of the insurance company would be to pay the compensation awarded to 42 out of the 90 passengers. It is to ensure that the maximum benefit is derived by the insurance taken for the passengers of the vehicle, that we hold that the 42 awards to be satisfied by the insurance company would be the 42 awards in the descending order starting from the highest of the awards. In other words, the higher of the 42 awards will be taken into account and it would be the sum total of those higher 42 awards that would be the amount that the insurance company would be liable to deposit. In other words, the higher of the 42 awards will be taken into account and it would be the sum total of those higher 42 awards that would be the amount that the insurance company would be liable to deposit. It will be for the Tribunal thereafter to direct distribution of the money so deposited by the insurance company proportionately to all the claimants, here all the 90, and leave all the claimants to recover the balance from the owner of the vehicle. In such cases, it will be necessary for the Tribunal, even at the initial stage, to make appropriate orders to ensure that the amount could be recovered from the owner by ordering attachment or by passing other restrictive orders against the owner so as to ensure the satisfaction in full of the awards that may be passed ultimately.” 11. Mr. Gautam, learned counsel has further relied on the decision of the Apex Court in Sunil Sharma & Ors. Vs. Bachitar Singh, reported in 2011 AIR SCW 2811 which is in the same line. 12. Mr. Dutta, learned counsel has referred to the decision of the Gauhati High Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Samina Begam and Ors., reported in 2013 3 GLR 349 where it has been held as under:- “13. On aggregate consideration of the materials as available in the records and as scrutinized by this court as well as on appreciation of the contentions by the counsel of the parties, this court has no hesitation to hold that the appellant shall pay the awarded sum to the claimant-respondent forthwith on deducting the sum, if any, that has been paid by this time. It is further held that after adjudication of the claim petitions as referred in Ext.C and D document, if it is found that the claims of the passengers are more than 34, then the insurance company would be at liberty to recover the rateable proportion as per the clause as extracted by the India Motor Tariff from the insured, the owner of the vehicle under Section 174 of the Motor Vehicles Act and for that purpose the appellant shall furnish copies of the judgment and award before the Tribunal for due examination. It is made clear that the award has to be satisfied by the appellant in all the cases initially and only thereafter they would be at liberty to realize the rateable proportion if it is found that the passengers who fell victim to the said accident were more than 34 (thirty four).” 13. This Court has the opportunity to look at the decision of the Apex Court in United India Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. K.M. Poonam & Ors., reported in 2011 AIR SCW 2802 where it has been observed as under:- “24. The liability of the insurer, therefore, is confined to the number of persons covered by the insurance policy and not beyond the same. In other words, as in the present case, since the insurance policy of the owner of the vehicle covered six occupants of the vehicle in question, including the driver, the liability of the insurer would be confined to six persons only, notwithstanding the larger number of persons carried in the vehicle. Such excess number of persons would have to be treated as third parties, but since no premium had been paid in the policy for them, the insurer would not be liable to make payment of the compensation amount as far as they are concerned. However, the liability of the Insurance Company to make payment even in respect of persons not covered by the insurance policy continues under the provisions of sub-section (1) of Section 149 of the Act, as it would be entitled to recover the same if it could prove that one of the conditions of the policy had been breached by the owner of the vehicle. In the instant case, any of the persons travelling in the vehicle in excess of the permitted number of six passengers, though entitled to be compensated by the owner of the vehicle, would still be entitled to receive the compensation amount from the insurer, who could then recover it from the insured owner of the vehicle.” 14. Having considered the rival submissions advanced by the parties, this Court is of the considered opinion that the fundamental liability of the Insurance Company is limited to the highest award delivered in the first 39 awards, meaning the first 39 higher awards. It will be further liability of the appellant insurer to make payment against those claims. Having considered the rival submissions advanced by the parties, this Court is of the considered opinion that the fundamental liability of the Insurance Company is limited to the highest award delivered in the first 39 awards, meaning the first 39 higher awards. It will be further liability of the appellant insurer to make payment against those claims. If the awards cross 39 the initial liability lies upon the insurance company to pay the same but at the same time they will be entitled to recover the said amount from the owner-respondent by filing a certificate proceeding under Section 174 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 without institution of any fresh suit for that purpose. 15. From the documents as furnished before the Court, it is revealed that the registration number of the offending vehicle stands corrected as AS 01-Y-7370 (Bus). 16. Mr. Gautam, learned counsel has drawn my attention that the Tribunal has imposed some penal interest @ 12% p.a. in making his award which is beyond the statute. This Court in a catena of decisions held that such award of final interest is not permissible or within the authority of the provisions of Section 171 of the Motor Vehicles Act. As such that part of the award stands interfered with and is set aside. 17. At this moment, Mr. Gautam has submitted that the appellant-Insurance Co has paid the entire amount of compensation along with permissible interest in favour of the claimant-respondents. 18. If that be so, the claimant-respondent is entitled to draw the compensation, or part thereof, in terms of the direction issued by the Tribunal. 19. In the light of the above observations and directions, the instant appeal is disposed of. Transmit the LC records forthwith.