Honble RAY, J.–Leave granted. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

(2). The question that calls for the decision of this Court is whether Order XXI Rule 1(2) Code of Civil Procedure is applicable in respect of the claims under Section 110(c) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 and whether it was justified in awarding interest on the decretal amount from June 26, 1986 (the date of depositof the decretal amount in court) to April 19, 1989 (when decree holder came to know about the deposit of the amount)?

(3). The relevant facts of the case are that an accident had taken place on May 7, 1983 in which one Shri Subhash Chand Pahwa who was travelling in the bus belonging to the appellant Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation fromJaipur to Delhi died due to accident by colliding with a truck. A claim petition was filed on August 23, 1983 by respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3, namely, the widow, minor son and daughter of the deceased against the appellant and respondent No.4, Shri Deepak Thakur who was the driver to Truck No. HRU 2995, respondent No.5, Shri Durga Prasad Parnami, the owner of the said truck, respondent No. 6 M/s. NewDelhi Assurance Company limited and respondent No.7, Ami Chand being the driver of bus No. RNB 7720 of the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation.

(4). The Accidents Claim Tribunal passed an award in favour of the claimants, namely, Smt. Poonam Pahwa and her minor son and daughter and against the respondents including the appellant Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the Corporation) for a sum of Rs. 2.5 lacs with 12% interest from the date of filing of the claim petition till actual realisation.

(5). The appellant-Corporation deposited a cheque of Rs. 3,36,111.30 on June 27, 1986 in the executing Court comprising the decretal award of compensation and interest calculated on the decretal award upto the date of deposit of the said decretal amount. It is an admitted position that the decree holders were not informed either by the Court or by the judgment debtors about the deposit ofthe said sum of Rs. 3,36,111.30 on June 27, 1986 and the decree holders came to know about such deposit only on April 19, 1989. The decree holders, therefore, made a claim for further interest at the said rate of 12% from the date of deposit till the decree holder got the information about such deposit made by the judgment debtors. Such claim was opposed by the appellant-Corporation by contending interalia that there was no obligation of the appellant-Corporation to give intimation to the decree holders about the deposit made by the Corporation and the provisions of Order XXI Rule 1(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure is not applicable in respect of the award passed by the Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal and in any event if the Court had failed to give the intimation of such deposit, the judgment debtorswould not suffer any prejudice on account of the mistake committed by the court. Such contentions, however, have been rejected by the Tribunal in the execution proceedings. The appellant-Corporation thereafter moved a Revision Petition before the Punjab and Haryana High Court against the order passed by executing court for depositing further sum on account of the interest to be paid by the judge-ment debtors from the date of deposit of the said decretal amount till the date when decree holders had got the information of such deposit. By the impugned judgment, the Review Petition has been dismissed by the High Court.

(6). Mr. S.K. Jain, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, has submitted that Order XXI Rule 1(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure is not applicable in res-pect with the claim made under Section 110 [C] of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. Mr. Jain has referred to the provisions of Section 110[C] of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 which reads as under :

``1) In holding any enquiry under Section 110-B the Claims Tribunal may subject to any rules that may be made in this behalf, follow such summary pr

Click Here to Read the rest of this document