Delhi High Court
Baldev Raj vs Oriental Insurance Co Ltd & Ors on 21 September, 2011
Author: Reva Khetrapal
UNREPORTED
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CM(M) 927/2011
BALDEV RAJ ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. O.P.Mannie, Advocate.
versus
ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LTD & ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Pradeep Gaur, Advocate
for the respondent No.1.
Mr. Navneet Goyal, Advocate
for the respondents No.2 to 5.
% Date of Decision : September 21, 2011
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REVA KHETRAPAL
1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed
to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?
3. Whether judgment should be reported in Digest?
J U D G M E N T (ORAL)
: REVA KHETRAPAL, J.
1. Since only a short point arises in this petition, the matter has
been heard with the consent of the parties and decided at this stage.
2. On the last date of hearing i.e. on 15th September, 2011 a
detailed order was passed by me, the relevant portion whereof reads
as under:
"The undisputed facts are that on 06.10.1995
an award in the sum of ` 3,36,000/- (including
interim award) was passed with interest at the
rate of 12% per annum from the date of the
filing of the petition. As per the award, a
sum of ` 1,50,000/- was to be paid by
the Insurance Company (the judgment debtor
No.3) with proportionate interest and the
remaining amount of ` 1,86,000/- was to be
(the driver and the owner respectively).
The record shows that the judgment
debtor No.3, which is the Insurance
Company had allegedly deposited its share of
compensation on 02.02.1996 through cheques
of ` 2,92,950/-, while the petitioner - the
judgment debtor No.2 had deposited the
principal amount of ` 1,86,000/- on
16.09.1996 and on 10.10.1996, he had given a
bank guarantee for payment of the interest
under orders of this court. It is not in dispute
that the sum of ` 2,92,950/- deposited by the
Insurance Company was withdrawn by the
claimants as and when the same was deposited.
It is also not in dispute that the claimants had
withdrawn the sum of ` 1,86,000/- as and when
the same was deposited by judgment debtor
No.2-insured Thereafter, two appeals were
filed against the award dated 06.10.1995, one
for enhancement of the compensation filed by
the claimants, being FAO No.31/1996, and the
other filed by the judgment debtor No.2 -
insured being FAO No.108/1996 with the
prayer that the entire liability be fastened on
the Insurance Company (the judgment debtor
No.3). Both the said appeals were decided by
a common judgment dated 01.06.2010,
whereby and whereunder FAO No.31/1996 for
enhancement of the compensation amount was
dismissed and the other appeal being FAO
No.108/1996 was allowed to the extent that the
entire liability was fastened on the Insurance
Company.
Mr. Goyal, the learned counsel for the
claimants/the respondents No.2 to 5 in the
present petition states that a sum of
` 5,55,625/- was due and payable to the
claimants on 15th December, 2010. It is not in
dispute that a sum of ` 6,31,225/- was
deposited by the Insurance Company on
29.09.2010. It is the contention of the counsel
for the Insurance Company that the aforesaid
amount was deposited under the belief that
the sum of ` 1,86,000/- had not been
deposited by the insured. It is stated that the
aforesaid amount of ` 6,31,225/- was returned
to the Insurance Company under the orders of
the learned Tribunal as the said amount was in
excess of the sum due and payable to the
claimants. However, the sum due and payable
to the claimants remains to be paid till date.
Mr. Goyal also claims on behalf of the
respondents No.2 to 5 that they be held entitled
to interest on the sum of ` 2,43,000/- which
according to him is the amount of interest,
which accrued on the principal amount of
` 1,86,000/- for the period from 24.10.1985 to
16.09.1996. The said claim is disputed by the
Insurance Company. From the above, it is
apparent that the petitioner, who had deposited
the sum of ` 1,86,000/-, which he was not
liable to pay is entitled to the interest thereon
from 16.09.1996, i.e. from the date of the
deposit till the date of realisation. It is also
apparent that the respondents No.2 to
5/claimants, who had received the sum of
` 1,86,000/- on 16.09.1996, are entitled only to
the interest thereon from 24.10.1985, that is,
the date of the filing of the petition till
16.09.1996, that is, the date on which the sum
of ` 1,86,000/- was received by them.
In the first instance the Registry is
directed to work-out the interest on the sum of
` 1,86,000/- deposited by the petitioner on
16.09.1996 till date.
List on 21st September, 2011, the date
fixed in the connected petition, No.CM(M)
No.1055/2011."
3. Pursuant to the said order, the Registry of this Court has
submitted its calculations. The counsel for the parties have also been
heard at length.
4. In my considered opinion, there is no manner of doubt that in
view of the orders dated 01.06.2010 passed by this court in FAO
No.108/1996 the appellant/owner shall be entitled to refund of
principal amount of ` 1,86,000/- deposited by him with interest at the
rate of 12% per annum from 16.09.1996 i.e. the date of deposit till its
realisation from the respondent No.1-Insurance Company. There is
also no manner of doubt that the respondents No.2 to 5/claimants
shall be entitled to interest at the rate of 12% per annum on the
amount of ` 1,86,000/- for the period 24.10.1985 i.e. the date of the
filing of the petition to 16.09.1996 when they received this amount.
5. In view of the above, parties are directed to appear before the
learned Claims Tribunal on 17.10.2011 for settlement/payment of
claims.
6. The petition stands disposed of accordingly.
REVA KHETRAPAL
(JUDGE)
September 21, 2011
ak
