IMPORTANT POINT
Order XXI Rule 1(2) Code of Civil Procedure is applicable in respect of the claims u/s 110(c) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 and it is imperative that the judgment debtor has to give notice to the decree holder about deposit for the decretal amount.

Headnote:Motor Accident Claims-Motor Vehicles Act, 1939-Section 110(C)-Claims under-Applicability of Order XXI Rule 1(2) Code of Civil Procedure-Award made in favour of claimants for a sum of Rs. 2.5 lacs with 12 interest-Appellant-Corporation deposited the amount on 27.6.1986 in executing Court-Decree holders were not informed either by Court or by judgment debtors about the deposit of the sum-Decree holders came to know about such deposit only on 19.4.1989-Decree holders made a claim for further interest form date of deposit till decree holder got the information about such deposit-Whether provisions of Order XXI Rule 1(2) CPC is applicable in respect of claims u/s 110(c) of the Act?-(Yes)-Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal being a statutory Judicial Tribunal have trappings of Court-It is imperative that judgment debtor has to give notice to decree holders about deposit for decree at amount.
       Held, the appellant, in our view, can be fastened with the liability to pay interest for the aforesaid period on account of not giving notice of the deposit of the decretal amount to the decree holder by applying the underlying principles of Order XXI Rule 1 of Civil Procedure Code. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal has been constituted under the Motor Vehicles Act to adjudicate the disputes arising out of claims on account of motor accidents. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal has been constituted by giving the exclusive jurisdiction to determine such disputes by excluding the jurisdiction of Civil Courts. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal being a statutory Judicial Tribunal specifically constituted for adjudicating the claims arising out of Motor accidents, have the trappings of the Court. (Para 19)
       Further held that the provisions of Order XXI Rule 1 are not in any way inconsistent with the provisions for awarding just and fair compensation in Motor Accident Claims. The real purpose of awarding just and fair compensation to the victim of the accident or the legal heirs of such victim will be fulfilled by applying the principle of Order XXI Rule 1 Civil Procedure Code so that the awardee is not deprived of the opportunity of gainfully utilising the amount under the award for want of notice about the deposit made by judgment debtor resulting in the sum remaining unutilised. In our view, therefore, there is no difficulty to apply the underlying principles under Order XXI, Rule 1 Civil Procedure Code in executing the award of compensation passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal and the Tribunal must be held to be competent to invoke the beneficial provisions of Order XXI Rule 1 Civil Procedure Code. (Para 22)
       After the amendment of Order XXI Rule 1 in 1976, there is no scope for any controversy as to the liability of the judgment debtor when the decretal amount is deposited in Court but the notice of such deposit is not give to the decree holder. It is imperative that the judgment debtor has to given notice to the decree holder about deposit for the decretal amount. Since motor accident in the instant case, had taken place on May 7, 1983, Order XXI Rule 1 as amended in 1976 is clearly applicable. Even otherwise also, the provision of Order XXI Rule 1 being a procedural law, amended provisions of Order XXI Rule 1 are applicable even if the accident had taken place prior to 1976 because such amendment of procedural law is retrospective in its operation. (Para 24)
       (ii) Motor Accident Claims -Motor Accident Claims Tribunal constituted under Motor Vehicles Act-Exclusive jurisdiction conferred to determine dispute arising out of claims by excluding jurisdiction of Civil Courts-Tribunals have trappings of Court.
       (iii) Interpretation of Statutes-By GSR 20/CA-4/39-S 111A/72 dated 28.1.1972, Haryana adopted Punjab Motor Vehicles Rules by substituting word Haryana for Punjab in Rule 1 Clause (b) and in Rule 2 Clause (b)-In Punjab Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal Rules 1964, amendment was effected on 21.6.1968 by inserting Order XXI CPC-Held, Haryana adopted Punjab Rules as it stood on date of adoption, namely, 20.1.1972-Mahindra & Mahindra s case, 1979(2) SCC 529 : Relied on.
       Held that when Haryana has adopted the Punjab Motor Accidents Rules in 1972, it must be held that it has adopted the Punjab Rules as it stood on the date of adoption, namely, January 20, 1972. Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure has been expressly made applicable in Punjab Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal Rules by amending the Punjab Rules in June 1968 which was published in Gazette on July 12, 1968. Therefore, by adopting the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal Rules, 1964 in 1972, it should be held that Haryana has adopted the Punjab Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal Rules, 1964 as stood amended on the date of adoption. In Mahindra and Mahindra s case, it has been held that if there is mere reference to a provision of statute in another without incorporation, then unless a different intention clearly appears, Section 8(1) of General Clauses Act would apply and the reference would be construed as a reference to the provision as may be in force from time to time in the former statute. But if a provision of one statue is incorporated in another, any subsequent amendment in the former statute or even its total repeal would not affect the provision as incorporated in the latter statute. (Para 17)

JUDGMENT

G.N. Ray, J.-Leave granted. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The question that calls for the decision of this Court in 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 deposit of 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 from Jaipur to Delhi died due to accident by colliding with a truck. A claim petition was filed on August 23, 1983 by respondent No. 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 of Truck No. HRU 2995, respondent No. 5, Shri Durga Prasad Parnami, the owner of the said truck, respondent No. 6 M/s. New Delhi 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 upon 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 of the 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 inter alia 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 debtors would 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 judgment 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 respect 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 su

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1997 Supreme(SC) 926

IMPORTANT POINTOrder XXI Rule 1(2) Code of Civil Procedure is applicable in respect of the claims u/s 110(c) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 and it is imperative that the judgment debtor has to give notice to the decree holder about deposit for the decretal amount.

Cases Referred (11)

IMPORTANT POINT
Order XXI Rule 1(2) Code of Civil Procedure is applicable in respect of the claims u/s 110(c) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 and it is imperative that the judgment debtor has to give notice to the decree holder about deposit for the decretal amount.