parties. Therefore, I am conuinced that despite of breach ofpolicy if ang, the insurance companA is liableto pag compensationto the insured.' The Commissioner also relied upon acase inANIL CHANDRA SHARMA V/s. ALKA RANIGHOSH1 holdingto thc effect that 'it is almost settled lau that utheneuerthe commissioner forWorkmen's Compensationdeals uith cases of claimantsof motor transport undertakings, the Insurance Policies areto be interpreted on tte lines of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal underlLte M.V.Act, 1998. Therefore, the objection ofthe leamed counsel for Opposite Partg No.2 has noplace for consideration. As aresult, I hold both the Opposite parties arejointly and seuerally liable JortLte paAment of compensation to the dependants of the deceased arLd in case of anA breach of policg condition, the Opposite Partg No.2 ts at libertg,to intttate separate proceedings before the legalauthorttg for the recouery of such amounts paid toutards compensation' Inall the cases, the Commissioner heid that the insurer andthe owner of the vehicle arejointly and severally liable and further directed to deposit the above said compensation amounts within thirty days from the date of receipt of the orders. But, in all these cases, tlie learned Commissioner failed to award interest on the compensation amount. Although in W.C.No. i6 ol 2003, n,hich dealt with a case of death, on a failure to deposit the 't999I LLJ 1356
