JUDGMENT
Prabhat Kumar Sinha, J.
1. This appeal is directed against order dated 13.7.2001 recorded by the 1st Additional District Judge, Madhepura-cum-Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal in M.V. Case No. 2 of 1989.
2. It will appear that on 18.7.2003 the last date of hearing on admission learned counsel for the respondent No. 2, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. (to be referred to as ‘the insurer’) had appeared but not the respondent No. 1, namely, Rajesh Kumar Jain and Deepak Kumar Jain, the substituted heirs of the owner of the vehicle. Prior to that also, on 15.7.2003 the respondent No. 1 was not present. Therefore, on 18.7.2003 the learned counsel for the appellant and for the insurer were heard and the case was again adjourned for hearing the respondent No. 1, if present on the next date or for recording the order. On 21.7.2003 also, none appeared on behalf of the respondent No. 1. The parties present were finally heard and with their consent, since this appeal mainly related to the interpretation of order of this court dated 26.6.2000 recorded in M.A. No. 586 of 1998 (Annexure 2), this appeal is being disposed of at this stage.
3. Motor Vehicles Claims Case No. 2 of 1989 was preferred by the claimant Nageshwar Prasad Mehta, the appellant here whose son had died while travelling in a bus owned by the father of the respondent No. 1 and insured by the insurer. The learned Tribunal fixed the compensation at Rs. 52,400 out of which the insurer had already paid Rs. 15,000 under Section 92-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. The learned Tribunal directed the insurer to pay the rest of the amount (Rs. 37,400) to the claimant with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of application, within one month of the order which was recorded on 4.9.1998, failing which the insurer was to pay penal interest at the rate of 18 per cent. Against that order the insurer filed Misc. Case No. 586 of 1998 claiming that its liability was limited to Rs. 15,000 only and also challenged the grant of interest. This matter was heard by this court on 26.6.2000 by which time the owner of the offending vehicle, respondent Mahabir Prasad Jain, as he had died, was substituted by the present respondent No. 1 by order dated 27.10.1999. Before recording the order dated 26.6.2000 aforesaid, apart from the appellant, the respondent No. 1 and substituted heirs of the respondent No. 2 were also heard through their counsel. From perusal of that order it will appear that only point that was raised and argued by the parties was whether or not the liability of the insurer was limited to Rs. 15,000. Hearing the parties this court recorded following order:
“In view of the aforesaid position, this appeal is admitted and is allowed. The liability of the insurer is held to be limited to Rs. 15,000 only and the rest of the compensation amount would be recoverable from the owner of the vehicle.”
4. Thereafter, it will appear that the claimant pressed in the Claims Tribunal for payment of the awarded amount and, ultimately, the respondent No. 1 filed a cheque of Rs. 37,400 only claiming that in view of the order of this court they were not liable to pay the interest as granted in the original award.
5. Before the learned Tribunal it was argued on behalf of the claimant that this court by its order had only shifted the liability of payment to the owner for the rest of the amount. Learned Tribunal holding that since the executing court could not go beyond the decree, in absence of any direction by this court regarding payment of interest that liability also could not be fastened upon the owner of the bus or his heirs. However, the learned Tribunal also held that the owner could not escape the liability to pay the penal interest at the rate of 18 per cent payable from the period commencing one month after the order of this court.
6. In course of arguments the learned counsel for the insurer did not deny that by order dated 26.6.2000 this court had not recorded any order for non-payment of the interest awarded by the Tribunal. However, on behalf of the insurer it was claimed that the insurer had already paid the amount of compensation, to pay which it was liable, with interest as ordered in the original award. This, therefore, is a matter which may be verified by the learned Tribunal.
7. It appears that the respondent No. 1 in the lower court had tried to take benefit of mere technicality in interpreting the aforesaid order of this court. There could not have been any other interpretation of the order dated 26.6.2000 aforesaid even if it was not specifically noted in the order that the appeal was allowed only to the extent as indicated in the order. Non-mention of those words would not take away the spirit of the order, nor it could take away the legal benefit that already had accrued to the claimant under the award of the Tribunal.
8. Amount of compensation is awarded under Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, on which interest may also be awarded under Section 171 of the Motor Vehicles Act. When interest is so granted, it also becomes part and parcel of the compensation awarded. The expression ‘compensation’ denotes both the sum awarded under Section 168 of the Act as well the interest awarded under Section 171.
9. Therefore, payment of compensation will be incomplete if not paid with interest awarded upon it. So when the insurer was held liable to pay compensation up to a sum of Rs. 15,000 it also meant that this amount included the interest so awarded since there was nothing in the order dated 26.6.2000 to show that award of interest was in any way interfered with, rather it was not even the subject of arguments. Likewise, when this court directed that the rest of the compensation amount would be recoverable from the owner of the vehicle it did not mean only the rest amount of Rs. 37,400 but also the interest that had accrued under the original award. The order dated 26.6.2000 aforesaid cannot be interpreted any other way.
10. Therefore, it is obvious that by dint of the order dated 26.6.2000 the insurer and the owner of the vehicle or the substituted heirs were liable to pay the amount of compensation as awarded against each of them which also included the interest that might have accrued upon that amount as per the original award of the Tribunal.
11. In terms of the aforesaid observations and directions this miscellaneous appeal stands disposed of. The learned Tribunal will act in accordance with order dated 26.6.2000 as explained under this order.