JUDGMENT
S B. Wad, J.
1. This order shall dispose of appeal Nos. 231, 232 and 233 of 1980. The Insurance Company has filed these three appeals arising out of the same accident, against the order of the Motor Accidents Ciaims Tribunal, dated 20-2-80. They are covered by the common judgment.
2.The Insurance Company in its memo of appeal has raised some legal submissions and some submissions on merits. The Insurance Company cannot in law challenge the award on merits. I would, therefore, deal only with the legal questions that are raised.
3.The first question raised by the counsel for the Insurance Company is that the liability of the Company is limited to Rs. 50,000/-. The law on this question is well settled. If the Insurance Company does not produce the Insurance Policy to show that their liability is limited only to a sum of Rs. 50,000/-, the liability is an unlimited liability. There is no merit in this submission and is, therefore, rejected.
4. It is then submitted that the liability should have been separately assorted and detailed in the Tribunal’s award for the owner, the driver of the vehicle and the Insurance Company because the Tribunal’s award fixes joint and several liability. This submission also has no merit in view of the fact that the liability of the Insurance Company has been held to be unlimited.
5. It is then contended that the Tribunal should have awarded interest from the date of the award, as the incident of accident, out of which the compensation arises, is not a commercial transaction. It is too late in the day to make such a claim. The Court can grant interest under Section 110cc. In fact the interest could have been awarded by the Tribunal from the date of the application itself as the accident had taken place on 16-11-74. This submission is untenable in law and is, therefore, rejected.
6. Another submission is that the compensation to the minors should not have been awarded twice, as heirs of the Mother and the Father. The compensation is awarded to the minors as their mother and father were the victims of the accident. The compensation is worked out separately as the compensation for the loss of the mother and the father. It was, therefore, proper for the Tribunal to award compensation to the heirs of the victims separately. This submission is also rejected.
7. The three appeals are, therefore, dismissed. This Court had earlier ordered that the amount of compensation should be withdrawn by the claimants on furnishing security. As the appeals are dismissed, the security stands discharged.