1. An important question of law that has come up for consideration is whether O.XXI, R.1 CPC is applicable in execution of awards passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunals. The petitioners filed this O.P. for quashing Ext. P4 order passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Irinjalakuda, fixing the balance amount due to the petitioners as Rs. 18,026 as on 31st May 1999 and interest on Rs. 4,16,000

from 1st June 1999 till deposit. But according to the petitioners the balance amount due would come to Rs. 92,809 as the method adopted by the Tribunal in the appropriation of the deposits made by the Insurance Company was wrong.

2. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the Insurance Company.

3. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Irinjalakuda, awarded a total compensation of Rs. 7,66,000 in OP (MV) 2788/93. Out of the above compensation amount, Rs. 66,000 was to be paid to the 4th petitioner whereas the rest of the amount Rs. 7,00,000 was to be paid to petitioners 1 to 3 in OP (MV) 2788/93. Interest at 12% from the date of petition viz. 25th March 1991 also was awarded. In the present O.P. we are concerned with the amount awarded in favour of the petitioners 1 to 3 ie., Rs. 7,00, 000 with interest at 12% thereon from the date of petition. Admittedly an amount of Rs. 2,00,000 was deposited by the Insurance Company on 5th February 1996, Rs. 1,20,000 on 20th February 1996 and Rs. 9,85,794 on 5th May 1999. According to the petitioners the total balance due to them was Rs. 92,809. The Tribunal as per Ext. P4 order accepted the contention of the Insurance Company and found that the balance due to the petitioners was Rs. 18,026 as on 31st May 1999 and also the subsequent interest on 4,16,000 from 1st June 1999 till the date of deposit and Rs. 250 towards costs. On going through Ext. P4 it could be seen that the Tribunal had appropriated the deposits made by the Insurance Company towards the principal amount and calculation was made accordingly. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners the appropriation of amount deposited should be first towards the interest and thereafter towards the principal and O. XXI, R.1 CPC would be the guideline in the appropriation of the deposits made by the 1st respondent.

4. The question for consideration is whether O. XXI, R.1 would be applicable so far as the execution of awards passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunals are concerned. The learned Counsel for the 1st respondent Insurance Company submitted that O.XXI, R.1 CPC has no application and the amount deposited should be appropriated first towards the principal and thereafter towards the interest. He placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in Prem Nath Kapur & Ann v. National Fertilizers Corporation of India Ltd. & Ors., 1996 (2) SCC 71.

The above decision cannot have any application in the present case as it relates to the award of interest under the Land Acquisition Act where specific provisions are made even in the statute regarding the award of interest. The learned Counsel for the petitioners argued that in view of R.394 of the Motor Vehicles Rules (Kerala), the award of the Tribunal has to be treated as a decree in a money suit and it has to be executed adopting the procedure prescribed by the CPC for execution of a money decree. The learned Counsel for the Insurance Company submitted that the procedure to be followed in proceeding before the Tribunals have been prescribed in the Kerala Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal Rules, 1977 and though different provisions under CPC were made applicable, O. XXI CPC was not made applicable, and hence O. XXI CPC cannot be imported in the proceedings. The Kerala Motor Accidents Claims Tribunals Rules, 1977 deals with the procedure to be followed in the trial of the claims petitions before the Tribunal. R.21 of the above Rules specify the provisions of the CPC which are made applicable in respect of proceedings before the Claims Tribunals. R.21 reads:

"Cod