JUDGMENT
B.P. Das, J.
1. The State of Orissa has filed the aforesaid two appeals challenging the common judgment dated 31.3.1992 passed by the 2nd. Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (S.D), Berhampur, in M.A.C. No. 327/88 (330/87) and No. 83/88 (196/87) respectively awarding compensation of Rs. 2,60,000/- for the death of deceased Prakash Chandra Padhi and Rs. 30,000/- in favour of the injured-Giridhari Palai, and saddling the liability of payment of the aforesaid compensation on the present appellant.
2. The brief facts leading to the present appeals may be stated thus : On 24.5.1987the deceased Prakash Chandra Padhi, while posted as the Officer-in-charge of Kodala Police Station, requisitioned a Private vehicle, namely, a mini-truck, bearing registration No. OSG 1974 belonging to Kailash Chandra Nayak for deployment on official duty as no Government vehicle was then available in the police station. The deceased along with his staff proceeded in the said vehicle with its driver to Polosara on official duty and on the way near Budhamba on Aska-Khallikote main road at about 11 p.m. the vehicle met with an accident when it dashed against a culvert and capsized. As a result of such accident, while the Officer-in-charge died at the spot, other occupants of the vehicle sustained multiple bodily injuries. The legal heirs of the deceased, i.e., the widow, a minor son and a daughter, (Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 in M.A. No. 381/92) and the injured persons filed separate claim cases being M.A.C. Nos. 327/88 (339/87), 232/87 (136/87), 231/88 (140/87), 78/88 (139/87), 83/88 (196/87), 138/88 (358/87), 77/88 (138/87), 93/88 (363/87) and 105/88(137/87). By a common judgment dated 15.8.1989, the Tribunal disposed of the aforesaid cases by holding that the death of the deceased and injuries to the injured persons were caused in the accident which occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle and awarded compensation in favour of the claimants in different cases. The Tribunal also held that as the vehicle was requisitioned by the Officer-in-charge of the police station for official purpose, the State of Orissa was liable to pay the compensation to the claimants.
Against the aforesaid judgment and awards passed by the Tribunal, the State of Orissa preferred appeals being M.A Nos. 527 of 535 of 1989 on the ground that the vehicle being insured with the insurer, the State Government could not be saddled with the liability of payment of compensation as there was nothing in the judgment to show that the vehicle was requisitioned by the person having the authority. Considering the submission of the State, this Court disposed of the aforesaid appeals and remanded the matters to the Tribunal for a fresh hearing strictly on the question whether the Officer-in-charge had any authority to requisition the vehicle. The Court, however, confirmed the determination of quantum of just compensation and the finding regarding negligent driving by the driver employed by the owner of the vehicle.
After remand, the Tribunal heard all the cases together and disposed of the same by the common judgment dated 31.3.1992 holding that the State Government was liable to pay the amounts of compensation awarded to the respective claimants, Against the aforesaid judgment of the respective claimants. Against the aforesaid judgment of the Tribunal, the State Government preferred separate appeals being M.A. Nos. 379 to 387 of 1992. Except the present two appeals, i.e., M.A. Nos. 381 and 387 of 1992, the other appeals have been either withdrawn or dismissed, as would appear from the memo-filed by the learned Addl. Standing Counsel.
3. In the present appeals, the State has challenged the awards mainly on the ground that admittedly the driver employed by the owner of the vehicle was driving the vehicle at the time of the accident and, according to the Motor Vehicles Act, tortious liability is to be saddled with the owner and since the vehicle in question met with the accident due to the negligence of the driver, the owner of the vehicle is liable to pay the compensation and the police raiding party being the gratituous passengers are liable to get the compensation from the owner. According to the counsel for the State, the owner is liable to be indemnified by the insurer in terms of the policy of insurance. In this regard my attention is drawn to the judgment of the Tribunal wherein it was found that respondent No. 3, the present appellant, had admitted that the offending vehicle was requisitioned by the Government for official duty. Basing upon the aforesaid finding, the Tribunal ultimately held that it is the appellant, who was liable to pay the compensation and not the owner of the vehicle. It is to be noted here that after the remand by this Court, the State Government did not adduce any further evidence before the Tribunal and relied upon the evidence already adduced during the initial stage of the proceeding. It is a fact that requisition of a vehicle by the Government is a compulsory one and no owner can raise any objection in that regard and after a vehicle is requisitioned, the owner will have no control over the vehicle while the same remains in the possession of the Government.
4. Condition No. 7 of the General Exceptions of the insurance policy provides :
“General Exceptions;
The company shall not be liable under the policy in respect of;
(1) to (6) *** *** *** (7) any accident loss, damage or liability caused, sustained or incurred during the period of requisition or commandeering by the Government for any purpose; *** *** *** Under Sub-section (1) of Section 146 of the M.V. Act, 1988 (Section 94 of the M.V. Act, 1939), no person can use or allow any other person to use the motor vehicle in a public place unless there is in force in relation to the use of the vehicle by that person, a policy of insurance complying with the requirements of Chapter XI.
In view of Sub-section (2) of Section 146 of the new Act, the aforesaid provision is not applicable to any vehicle owned by the Central or State Government and used for Government purposes. Sub-section (3) vests power in the appropriate Government to exempt from the operation of Sub-section (1) of Section 146 any vehicle even owned by local authority or any transport undertaking. Section 146 of the Act requires that a policy of insurance must provide insurance against any liability to third party incurred by the person using the vehicle. But there is no such requirement so far as the vehicle owned by the Central Government or State Government is concerned. Liability of the vehicle requisitioned by the Government is not the vehicle that had been hired by a third party and as the factum of requisition has been admitted and a positive finding to that effect has been recorded by the Tribunal, it can safely be inferred that for the purpose of user, the owner of the vehicle was the State Government at that point of time. So, the liability of the insurance company under Section 146 of the Act stood transferred to the State Government. The finding of the Tribunal is, therefore, correct in the sense that as per condition No. 7 of the exception clause of the policy of insurance, the insurance company cannot be held liable for payment of damages or loss caused to the vehicle when requisitioned by the Government for official duty.
5. In this regard, it is apt to refer to the decision of this Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Durdadahya Kumar Samal, 1988 ACJ 540, wherein it was held thus :
“The word ‘owner’ in this case is to be liberally interpreted. When a vehicle had been requisitioned, the Collector for the purpose of liability becomes the owner of the vehicle. In a vehicle requisitioned, the driver remains under the control of the Collector and by such driving the vehicle he can be accepted to have been employed by the Collector. Thus, the Collector would be vicariously liable for the act of the driver in the present case.”
A Full Bench of the Patna High Court in Ram Narayan Singh v. Election Commission, 1997 ACJ 67, relying upon the decision of the Apex Court in State of Maharashtra v. Kanchanmala Vijaysing Shirke, 1995 ACJ 1021 (SC), as well as the decision of this Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Durdadahya (supra), and also having regard to Clause 7 of the General Exceptions of the insurance policy, concluded that in such cases the State Govt. alone could he held liable for compensation for the loss and damage caused to the vehicle on account of accident.
6. At this stage, it would be worthwhile to indicate that in Vijayasingh Shirke’s case (supra), a Govt. vehicle, while being driven by an unauthorised person, met with an accident and on behalf of the State of Maharashtra, a plea was taken that the driver of the vehicle under influence of liquor had handed over the key to a clerk of the office to drive the vehicle. The accident took place by the negligence of a person who was not at all authorised by the Govt. to drive the vehicle. The Apex Court while rejecting the plea of the State Govt. hold that since the accident took place when the vehicle was on Government duty, therefore, the State cannot excape its vicarious liability to pay the compensation to the victims.
7. In view of the aforesaid factual and legal position, in the case at hand I find that the Tribunal has exhaustively dealt with the matter and proceeded correctly by saddling the liability of payment of compensation on the present appellant-State Govt. of Orissa.
Accordingly, the appeals are devoid of any merit and the same are dismissed without any order as to cost.
8. The entire awarded amounts have already been deposited in this Court. From the record placed before me, it appears that Rs. 4,26,082/- was deposited in this Court on 22.6.1998, and the same was invested in fixed deposit on 15.7.1998 in the Bank of India. The Tribunal directed that unless the awarded amounts are deposited within three months from the date of the award, the amounts shall carry interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the respective claim petitions till realisation. As I find the claim petitions were filed respectively on 4.11.1987 and 17.7.1987 and the awarded amounts were deposited on 22.6.1998. The State Govt. is, therefore, to pay interest on the awarded amounts at the rate of 12% per annum. Let the balance amount of interest for the period commencing from the date of the claim petitions till 22.6.1998 be deposited in this Court within a period of three months hence.
So far as M.A, No. 381/92 is concerned, out of the awarded amount of compensation and the interest accrued thereon, 25% each shall be kept in fixed deposit in the names of the minor son and daughter of the deceased, i.e., respondent Nos. 2 and 3, in any nationalised bank for a period of ten years, and 40% shall be invested in a fixed deposit in the name of the widow of the deceased, i.e., respondent No. 1 for a period of ten years. The balance 10% shall be paid to respondent No. 1, in shape of an account payee cheque. So far as M.A. No. 387/92 is concerned, the awarded amount shall be disbursed to the claimant-respondent No. 1.