Back
2023 Supreme(P&H) 141
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
NAMIT KUMAR, J.
Suresh Devi – Petitioner
Versus
The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and Others – Respondents
CR No. 449 of 2019
Decided On : 09-08-2023
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Amit Kumar Jain.
For the Respondent: Vinod Chaudhri.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the obligation of the judgment-debtor to give notice to the decree-holder about the deposit of the decretal amount as per the provisions of Order 21 Rule 1(2) CPC, and the consequences of failing to provide such notice.
Headnote:
Order 21 Rule 1 CPC - Motor Accident Claims - Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act - [Order 21 Rule 1(2) CPC] - The court discussed the provisions of Order 21 Rule 1(2) CPC and the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation’s case regarding the obligation of the judgment-debtor to give notice to the decree-holder about the deposit of the decretal amount. The court emphasized that the interest ceases to run on the deposit made by the judgment-debtor only after the service of notice to the decree-holder, and that the decree-holder's right should be affected only after being informed that the decretal amount is available for withdrawal from the Court.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner and her son filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation for the death of Tara Chand in a motor vehicular accident. The claim petition was partly allowed and the Insurance Company deposited the awarded amount after the dismissal of its appeal. The Insurance Company then filed an application for refund of interest amount, which was allowed by the Executing Court.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that there was a serious violation of the principles laid down in Order 21 Rule 1 CPC by the Insurance Company and the Tribunal, resulting in unreasonable delay in releasing the amount of the award and loss of interest to the petitioner/claimants. The impugned order was set aside, and it was directed that if the interest amount has been refunded to the Insurance Company, the same shall be deposited with the Tribunal and notice of deposit shall be given to the petitioner/claimants in accordance with Order 21 Rule 1 CPC.
Issues: The issues involved the obligation of the judgment-debtor to give notice to the decree-holder about the deposit of the decretal amount, and the consequences of failing to provide such notice as per the provisions of Order 21 Rule 1(2) CPC.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the interest ceases to run on the deposit made by the judgment-debtor only after the service of notice to the decree-holder, and that the decree-holder's right should be affected only after being informed that the decretal amount is available for withdrawal from the Court.
Final Decision: The present revision petition was allowed, and the impugned order passed by the Executing Court was set aside. It was directed that if the interest amount has been refunded to the Insurance Company, the same shall be deposited with the Tribunal and notice of deposit shall be given to the petitioner/claimants in accordance with Order 21 Rule 1 CPC.
JUDGMENT :
NAMIT KUMAR, J.
1. This revision petition has been filed by petitioner/decree-holder under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside impugned order dated 17.11.2018 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jind, whereby application filed by respondent No. 1-Insurance Company for refund of amount of interest from 02.09.2014 to 19.08.2017 has been allowed.
2. Brief facts of the case are that petitioner and her son filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming a sum of Rs.20 lakh as compensation along with interest @ 18% per annum on account of death of Tara Chand in a motor vehicular accident on 30.07.2010. The claim petition was partly allowed on 02.06.2011 and a sum of Rs.6,26,192/- was awarded to the claimants along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till its actual realisation. Respondent No. 1-Insurance Company filed FAO-6345 of 2011 against the aforesaid award in which initially 50% of the awarded amount was stayed vide order dated 18.10.2011 and thereafter, the same was dismissed by this Court vide judgment dated 05.03.2014. After dismissal of its appeal, respondent No. 1-Insurance Company deposited a sum of Rs.3,25,000/- on 12.04.2014 and Rs.25,000/- on 02.09.2014. Thereafter, petitioner filed execution petition for recovery of the awarded amount on 19.08.2017 and a sum of Rs.5,49,500/- was paid by the Insurance Company to the petitioner as balance of awarded amount along with interest. Thereafter, respondent No. 1-Insurance Company filed an application for refund of interest amount from 12.04.2014 till 19.08.2017 on the ground that it had already deposited the amount of Rs.3,25,000/- on 12.04.2014 to avoid burden of interest, which has been allowed by the Executing Court vide impugned order dated 17.11.2018. Hence, this revision petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that impugned order passed by the Executing Court is based on surmises and conjectures as the same has been passed without taking into consideration the provisions of Order 21 Rule 1(2) CPC. He further submitted that no notice or intimation regarding deposit of awarded amount by the Insurance Company was given to the petitioner. Therefore, the impugned order is not sustainable in the eyes of law and is liable to be set aside. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation vs. Poonam Pahwa, 1997 (3) RCR (Civil) 451, Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. vs. R.S. Avtar Singh and Co. 2013 (1) RCR (Civil) 252 and the judgment of Delhi High Court in Sobat Singh vs. Ramesh Chandra Gupta and Another, 2010 (14) RCR (Civil) 366.
4. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No. 1-Insurance Company submitted that the impugned order is perfectly legal and valid. He contended that after dismissal of its appeal, respondent No. 1- Insurance Company had deposited the entire amount without any delay. Therefore, the amount of interest has rightly been ordered to be refunded to respondent No. 1-Insurance Company and the present revision petition is liable to be dismissed.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
6. Order 21 Rule 1(2) CPC reads as under:
“(1) All money, payable under a decree shall be paid as follows, namely:
(a) by deposit into the Court whose duty it is to execute the decree, or sent to that Court by postal money order or through a bank.
(b) out of Court, to the decree-holder by postal money order or through a bank or by any other mode wherein payment is evidenced in writing.
(c) otherwise, as the Court which made the decree, directs.
(2) Where any payment is made under clause (a) or clause (c) of sub-rule (1), the judgment-debtor shall give notice thereof to the decree-holder either through the Court or directly to him by registered post, acknowledgement due.
(3) Where money is paid by postal money ord
