P.K. Misra, J.
1. The owner has filed this appeal against the award of the Claims Tribunal.
2. The only question raised relates to inter se liability of the owner vis-a-vis that of the Insurance Company. The deceased was the owner of goods travelling in a goods vehicle. Accident occurred on 4.5.1992. The Claims Tribunal while awarding compensation to the legal representatives observed that the amount should be paid by the owner following the decision of this Court reported in 81 (1996) CLT 580 (The Divisional Manager, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Cuttack Divisional Office v. Jasoda Mohanta and Ors.). In the aforesaid decision while interpreting the provisions contained in Section 95(1 )(b) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, it had been opined that the Insurance Company is not required under the Act to cover the liability in respect of owner of goods accompanying his goods in a goods vehicle. In fact, while interpreting the provisions of the old Act similar view has been subsequently expressed by the Supreme Court in the decision reported in 1999 (1) TAC 202 (SC) (Smt. Mallawa and Ors. v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. and Ors.). There is no doubt that if the old provisions would have been applicable, the direction of the Tribunal regarding liability of the owner could not have been found fault with.
3. However, subsequently, after the new Act of 1988 came into force, the position of law seems to be different. It has been now held that irrespective of the nature of the vehicle, the Insurance Company would be required to bear the liability in respect of even a gratuitous passenger in a goods vehicle. The view expressed by this Court in the decision reported in 1994 (I) OLR 1 (FB), (New India Assurance Company Ltd. v. Kanchan Bewa and Ors., etc.), wherein it has been held that liability in respect of the owner of goods travelling in a goods vehicle is not required to be covered by the Insurance Company has not been followed in the decision reported in 2000 (I) OLR 247 (Gangadhar Sahoo and Ors. v. Saradananda Pandey and Anr.) in view of the changes effected in the Motor Vehicles Act. 1988. The position has become quite clear in view of the decision of the Supreme Court reported in AIR 2000 Supreme Court, 235 (New India Assurance Company v. Satpal Singh and Ors.). In such view of the matter, there cannot be any dispute that the liability has to be borne by the Insurance Company.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company submitted that the Insurance Companies had been acting on the basis of decisions earlier reported under the old Act and as such even though the liability is now to be fixed in accordance with the subsequent decision of the Supreme Court, the Insurance Company should not be asked to pay the interest.
In the present case, it appears that the owner has deposited a sum of Rs. 25,000/- which has been invested in a fixed deposit. The learned counsel for the Insurance Company has stated that interest should be waived at least for the period during which the appeal remained pending in this Court. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I think interest of justice would be served by directing that the sum deposited in this Court along with accrued interest should be paid to claimant-respondents and the registry after calculating the accrued interest shall intimate the same to the counsel for the Insurance Company to facilitate reimbursement by the Insurance Company to the owner. The Insurance Company is further directed to pay the balance principal amount along with interest as directed by the Claims Tribunal from the date of claim application till end of 1996 and interest on such amount beyond 1996 is waived. However, it is made clear that if the balance amount is not deposited before the Claims Tribunal by end of May, 2000. interest for the entire period will become payable.
5. The Misc. Appeal is accordingly allowed. There will be no order as to costs.