Krishnan, J.

The first three writ petitions mentioned above had been referred by the learned Judge of this Court by his order dated 9th November, 2005. The scope of reference is to consider whether the dictum laid down in Sobha Mohankumar v. National Insurance Company Ltd. (2002 (3) KLT 293) requires re-consideration. The contention is whether Order 21 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure is applicable to the execution proceedings of an award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal and whether Section 171 of the Motor Vehicles Act and other provisions bars application of Order 21 of CPC and further whether the decree holder is entitled to interest on interest. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of these writ petitions are as follows. O.P.22527/04 is filled against the order of the claims Tribunal, Thodupuzha in E.P.26/02 in OP(MV) 295/89. The executing Court held that the costs and interest have to be adjusted first and the contention of the judgment debtor that it has to be adjusted first towards the principal was rejected. In O.P. 22528/04 the executing Court passed a very similar order and held that the part payments made by the judgment debtor, Insurance Company has to be adjusted towards the interest and then towards principal in that order. In O.P.17731/05 also the court held that the same principle has to be followed. In OP(MV) 2749/95 against which W.P. No.17446/06 is filed, the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal had taken the same view and arrived at a figure as per the provisions of Order XXI of the CPC. So, the points that arise for determination are;

(1) Whether Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure is applicable to the execution proceedings before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal and whether the decision of the Apex Court in Prem Nath Kapur V. National Fertilizers Corporation of India Ltd. (1996 (2) SCC 71) would bar such an approach?

(2) Whether the claimants are entitled to get interest on interest? And

(3) What will be the position with respect to the interim award passed by the Tribunal and deposited by the judgment debtor?

(4) What will be the position with respect to the amount deposited u/s 173 of M.V. Act which is a condition precedent to prefer an appeal?

Point No.1:

2. This question deals with the question of applicability of Order XX1 of the Code of Civil Procedure to execution proceedings before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. The learned Judge of this Court in the case reported in Sobha Mohankumar V. National Insurance Company Ltd (2002 (3) KLT 293) held as follows:

“The provisions of O.XXI R.1 are applicable so far as execution of awards of the Tribunals are concerned. The amount deposited by the Insurance Company has to be appropriated in accordance with the procedure contemplated under O.XXI, R.1 CPC O.XXI, R.1(1) deals with the modes of payment of decree amount. Deposit of decree amount before Court is one of the modes contemplated by sub-r.(1)(a). Sub-r.(3)(c) says that when decree amount is deposited in Court, such deposit shall disclose the number of the original suit; name of parties, the manner in which the money remitted is to be adjusted i.e., whether towards principal or towards interest or costs etc. Hence when deposit is made, it should disclose the manner in which the deposit should be appropriated. If no such statements are there disclosing the manner in which has to be adjusted, the amount deposited has to be appropriated towards interest and costs first and then towards principal. Since the Insurance company has not specified the manner in which the deposits were to be appropriated when deposits were made and as the decree holder had not agreed to the same. Hence, the amount deposited will have to be appropriated first towards the interest and thereafter towards the principal. The Tribunal had appropriated the deposits towards principal and thus committed an error. The calculation of interest and the amount mentioned by the petitioner in the O.P. are not at