Gauhati High Court
WA/330/2024 on 5 May, 2025
Page No.# 1/9
GAHC010258652023
undefined
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WA/330/2024
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD
(SUBSIDIARY OF GENERAL INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA)
REGISTERED HEAD OFFICE AT 24 WHITES ROAD, MADRAS-600014.
REPRESENTED BY THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER, GAUHATI REGIONAL
OFFICE, G.S. ROAD, GUWAHATI-781005.
.....Appellant
-VERSUS-
SMTI. NIZARA GOSWAMI
W/O LATE TUTUL SARMA,
R/O KHANAGURI, P.O AND P.S- SOOTEA,
DISTRICT- SONITPUR, ASSAM, PIN-784175.
.....Respondent
- BEFORE -
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. VIJAY BISHNOI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR
For the Appellant(s) : Ms. Rita Das Mozumdar, Advocate.
For the Respondent(s) : Mr. H.J. Tamuli, Advocate.
Date of Hearing : 05.05.2025.
Date of judgment : 05.05.2025.
JUDGMENT & ORDER (ORAL)
(Vijay Bishnoi, CJ)
Heard Ms. R.D. Mozumdar, learned counsel appearing for the appellant
Page No.# 2/9
Insurance Company. Also heard Mr. H.J. Tamuli, learned counsel appearing for
the respondent.
2. This writ appeal is preferred against the judgment and order dated
11.08.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C) No.7117/2017,
whereby the learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition filed on behalf of
the respondent herein and directed the appellant Insurance Company to deposit
an amount of Rs.7,27,548/- along with 9% interest with effect from 02.03.2017
till due payment before the Registry of this Court. The learned Single Judge has
further ordered that the respondent herein would be entitled to Rs.2,52,796/-
on account of interest and Rs.1,000/- towards cost. The appellant Insurance
Company has been directed to deposit the said amounts within 60 days from
the date of passing of the judgment. The learned Single Judge has also granted
liberty to the respondent to move appropriate application for release of the said
amount and the Registry was directed to release the said amount so deposited
to the Bank Account of the respondent after necessary verification and
identification.
3. The brief facts of the case are that the Member, Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal, Sonitpur, Tezpur passed an award dated 20.08.2013 in M.A.C. Case
No.230/2009 directing the appellant Insurance Company to pay compensation
to the respondent to the tune of Rs.19,27,548/- along with the interest at the
rate of 9% per annum from the date of institution of the claim before the MACT,
i.e. 07.07.2009 till realisation. A cost of Rs.1,000/- was also imposed upon the
appellant Insurance Company.
4. Almost 2(two) years after passing of the award dated 20.08.2013, the
appellant Insurance Company preferred an appeal before this Court, being MAC
Appeal No.50/2015. This Court had admitted the said MAC appeal and as an
Page No.# 3/9
interim measure direction was given to deposit 50% of the said awarded
compensation vide order dated 27.02.2015 passed in Misc. Case No.490/2015
arising out of MAC Appeal No.50/2015.
5. Pursuant to the said direction, the appellant Insurance Company deposited
an amount of Rs.12,00,000/- on 23.04.2015 before the Registry of this Court.
Ultimately, MAC Appeal No.50/2015, preferred on behalf of the appellant
Insurance Company, was disposed of in Lok Adalat held on 12.11.2016 on
withdrawal by the Insurance Company. However, while withdrawing the appeal,
the Insurance Company sought a little clarification to the effect that the amount
already paid by the Insurance Company, pursuant to the interim order passed
by this Court, should be deducted by computing the interest amount.
6. The Lok Adalat clarified in the order dated 12.11.2016 that the amount
already paid to the claimant would not be taken into consideration while
computing the interest amount.
7. As per the order passed by the Lok Adalat on 12.11.2016, an amount of
Rs.11,15,000/- was paid to the respondent in March, 2017, claiming that the
same is paid as full and final settlement pursuant order passed by the Lok
Adalat.
8. The respondent, being dissatisfied with the same, approached the
appellant Insurance Company with a prayer to pay the full amount as per the
order passed by the Lok Adalat. However, when the appellant Insurance
Company did not redress the grievances of the respondent, she preferred WP(C)
No.7117/2017, which was allowed by the learned Single Judge vide impugned
judgment and order dated 11.08.2023.
9. The learned Single Judge, after hearing the counsel for the parties and on
Page No.# 4/9
perusal of the material available on record, has recorded the following findings:
"6. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties and have perused the
materials on record. Taking into account the contesting stand so taken by the
Petitioner as well as the Respondents, this Court deems it proper to take note of
the order dated 12.11.2016 which has already been reproduced hereinabove.
This order in the opinion of this Court has to be read with the judgment and
award dated 20.08.2013 passed in MAC Case No.230/2009. As already stated
hereinabove, the learned Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs.19,27,548/-
along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of institution of the case i.e.
on 07.07.2009 till realization. In addition to that, an amount of Rs.1,000/- has
been awarded as cost. It appears further from the records that on 27.02.2015,
this Court directed the Respondents in Misc Case No.490/2015 arising out of
MAC Appeal No.50/2015 to deposit 50% of the said amount and on the basis
thereof, an amount of Rs.12,00,000/- was deposited on 23.04.2015.
7. This Court finds it relevant at this stage to take note of the total amount
payable to the Petitioner as on 23.04.2015 as per the award dated 20.08.2013.
The said amounts comes to Rs.19,27,548/- + 9% interest w.e.f. 07.07.2009 to
23.04.2015 i.e. 5 years 9 months 16 days or 2116 days. The interest amount
as on 23.04.2015 is Rs.10,05,704/. Therefore, the total amount as on
23.04.2015 was Rs.29,33,252/-. As an amount of Rs.12,00,000/- was duly
deposited, the remaining balance amount comes to Rs.17,33,252/-.
8. Now, let this Court take note of how the calculation is to be made as to
when there is a deposit so made in terms with an interim order. The
Constitution Bench in the Case of Gurpreet Singh Vs. Union of India
reported in (2006) 8 SCC 457 had duly opined as to how the amount so paid
pursuant to interim orders are required to be adjusted. This aspect of the matter
can be seen from paragraph No.52 which is reproduced herein under:
"52. What is to happen when a part of the amount awarded by the Reference
Court or by the appellate court is deposited pursuant to an interim order of the
appellate court or of the further appellate court and the awardee is given the liberty to
withdraw that amount? In such a case, the amount would be received by the decree-
holder on the strength of the interim order and the appropriation will be subject to the
decision in the appeal or the further appeal and the direction, if any, contained therein.
In such a case, if the appeal is disposed of in his favour, the decree-holder would be
entitled to appropriate the amount already received by him pursuant to the interim order
first towards interest then towards costs and the balance towards principal as on date of
the withdrawal of the amount and claim interest on the balance amount of enhanced
compensation by levying execution. But on the part appropriated towards the principal,
the interest would cease from the date on which the amount is received by the awardee.
Of course, if while passing the interim order, the court has indicated as to how the
deposited amount is to be appropriated, that direction will prevail and the appropriation
could only be done on the basis of that direction."
9. From the above, it could be seen that the Constitution Bench had opined
that when a part of an amount awarded by the Reference Court or by the
Page No.# 5/9
Appellate Court is deposited pursuant to an interim order of the Appellate Court
or the further Appellate Court and the awardee is given the liberty to withdraw
the amount, in such a case the amount will be received by the decree
holder/awardee on the strength of the interim order and the appropriation will
be subject to the decision in the appeal or the further appeal and the direction, if
any, contained therein. It was further observed that in such a case, if the
appeal is disposed of in favour of the decree holder/awardee, he would be
entitled to appropriate amount already received by him pursuant to the interim
order first towards interest, then towards costs and then the balance towards
the principal as on the date of withdrawal of the amount and claim interest on
the balance amount of the enhanced compensation by levying execution. It was
further observed that on the part appropriated towards the principal, interest
would cease from the date on which the amount is received by the awardee. It
was further observed that if while passing the interim order, the Court had
indicated as to how the deposited amount is to be appropriated, that direction
will prevail and the appropriation could only be done on the basis of that
direction.
10. In the instant case while disposing of the Misc Case No.490/2015
thereby directing the Respondents herein to deposit 50% of the amount vide
order dated 27.02.2015, there was no direction as to how the amount was to be
apportioned.
11. In the backdrop of the above, let this Court therefore take into
consideration the directions so passed in the order dated 12.11.2016. It would
be relevant to take note of that in the said order, this Court had duly taken into
consideration that the Respondent Insurance Company herein i.e. the
appellants in MAC Appeal No.50/2015 had submitted that they are willing to
withdraw the appeal however stated that the amount already paid by the
Insurance Company should be deducted while computing the interest amount
and this Court therefore vide the order dated 12.11.2016 permitted the
withdrawal with a direction to the Insurance Company to deposit the amount
within 30 days from the date of the said order and further clarified that the
amount already paid to the Claimant would not be taken into consideration
while computing the interest amount meaning thereby, this Court vide the order
dated 12.11.2016 while disposing of the appeal directed how the amount which
was already deposited in pursuance to the interim order is required to be
apportioned.
12. It is further relevant to take note of that after the payment of
Rs.12,00,000/- on 23.04.2015, the balance amount so payable was
Rs.17,33,252/- and to the said amount, an interest shall accrue @ 9% per
annum was payable. At the time of withdrawal of the said appeal on
12.11.2016, the total amount which was payable to the Petitioner was
Rs.19,27,548/- + 9% interest w.e.f. 07.07.2009 to 12.11.2016 and in normal
circumstances applying the law as laid down in the case of Gurpreet Singh
(supra), the calculation works out as under:
Rs.19,27,548 + 9% for 2116 days i.e. from 07.07.2009 to 23.04.2015
Page No.# 6/9
= Rs.19,27,548 + Rs.10,05,704
= Rs.29,33,252
Now apportioning Rs.12,00,000/- so paid on 23.04.2015 towards
interest, then costs and then to the principal, the amount remains to be paid is
Rs.17,33,252/-. The said amount is the Principal amount. On the said amount,
9% interest would be payable from 24.04.2015 to 01.03.2017 (the date when
Rs.8,74,358/- was paid). Therefore, the total amount as on 1 st March 2017 was
Rs.20,22,586/- (principal Rs.17,33,252 + Rs.2,89,334).
Having paid the amount of Rs.8,74,358/- on 1st March 2017, the total
amount payable as on 2nd March, 2017 is Rs.11,48,228/-.
Therefore, applying the ratio of Gurpreet Singh (supra), the Petitioner
would be further entitled to Rs.11,48,228/- along with interest @ 9% from 2nd
March, 2017 to the date of realization of the entire amount.
13. Now, let this Court take into consideration as to whether there would be
any change in the amount in view of the order dated 12.11.2016. It is relevant
to note that as on 23.04.2015, the amount payable to the Petitioner in view of
the award dated 20.08.2013 in MAC Case No.230/2009 was Rs.29,33,252/-.
The amount of Rs.12,00,000/- was paid on 23.04.2015. In the order dated
12.11.2016, it was mentioned that the Insurance Company had submitted that
the amount of Rs.12,00,000/- so paid should be deducted while computing the
interest. This Court observed that the amount already paid to the Claimant
would not be taken into consideration while computing the interest amount. But
interestingly, when the order dated 12.11.2016 was passed or for that matter
when the amount of Rs.12,00,000/- was deposited, the amount payable to the
Petitioner/Claimant as on 23.04.2015 was Rs.29,33,252/-. The Award was not
modified or interfered with by the order dated 12.11.2016. Therefore the
calculation works out taking into consideration the order dated 12.11.2016 as
under:
Sl. Details Amount
No.
(1) Principal amount as per
Rs.19,27,548
Award
(2) Cost Rs.1,000
(3) Interest from 07.07.2009 to
23.04.2015 i.e. 2116 days @ Rs.10,05,764
9% per annum
Page No.# 7/9
(4) Interim amount paid on
23.04.2015 pursuant to the
Rs.12,00,000
order of this Court dated
27.02.2015
(5) Order dated 12.11.2016 Rs.19,27,548 -Rs.12,00,000
directing no interest on the
amount of Rs.12,00,000 so = Rs.7,27,548 (principal payable )
paid
+ Rs.10,05,704 (Interest)
+ Rs.1,000 (Costs)
(6) Amount paid on 01.03.2017 Rs.8,74,358
(no specific directions how to
be apportioned in the order Therefore the amount of
dated 12.11.2016 as regards Rs.8,74,358 has to be deducted
the remaining amount from the interest amount of
Rs.10,05,704
(Rs.10,05,704- Rs.8,74,358)
= Rs.1,31,346
(7) Interest on Rs.7,27,548 from
24.04.2015 to 01.03.2017 i.e.
for 677 days @ 9% per annum Rs.1,21,450
Therefore total payable as on 2nd
March, 2017 is
Principal = Rs.7,27,548
Costs = Rs.1,000
Interst : Rs.1,31,346 +
Rs.1,21,450
= Rs.2,52,796
Therefore, by applying the order dated 12.11.2016, the Petitioner is
further entitled to an amount of Rs.7,27,548/- along with 9% interest w.e.f. 2 nd
March, 2017 till due payment before the Registry of this Court. Apart from the
Page No.# 8/9
said, the Petitioner would be further entitled to Rs.2,52,796/- on account of
interest and Rs.1,000/- towards costs.
14. In that view of the matter, the instant writ petition stands allowed
thereby directing the Respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 to deposit the amount of
Rs.7,27,548/- along with 9% interest w.e.f. 2nd March, 2017 till due payment
before the Registry of this Court. Apart from the said, the Petitioner would be
further entitled to Rs.2,52,796/- on account of interest and Rs.1,000/- towards
cost. The said amounts are directed to be deposited within 60 days from the
date of passing of this judgment.
15. The Petitioner shall be at liberty to file appropriate application before the
Registry of this Court for release of the said amount. The Registry upon
necessary verification and identification shall release the said amount so
deposited to the Bank Account of the Petitioner.
16. With the above observations and directions, the instant petition stands
allowed."
10. Learned counsel for the appellant Insurance Company has argued that the
learned Single Judge has erred in passing the impugned judgment and order
because the appellant Insurance Company agreed to withdraw the appeal [MAC
Appeal No.50/2015] only on the condition that no interest would be paid on the
amount already paid to the respondent. However, the learned Single Judge has
failed to take into consideration the fact that as per the order passed by the Lok
Adalat, the appellant Insurance Company was not supposed to pay any interest
on the amount already deposited pursuant to the interim order dated
27.02.2015 passed by this Court in Misc. Case No.490/2015 arising out of MAC
Appeal No.50/2015. It is contended that the learned Single Judge has erred in
calculating the interest on the deposited amount and also erred in directing the
appellant Insurance Company to deposit the amount along with the interest on
interest. It is, therefore, prayed that the impugned judgment and order passed
by the learned Single may kindly be set aside.
11. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent has opposed the writ
appeal and has argued that the learned Single Judge has not committed any
illegality in passing the impugned judgment and order.
Page No.# 9/9
12. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and after going through
the material available on record, we are of the view that the learned Single
Judge has not committed any illegality in passing the impugned order because
the interest already accrued in favour of the respondent herein before passing
of the interim order by this Court in Misc. Case No.490/2015 arising out of MAC
Appeal No.50/2015, cannot be denied and the calculation worked out by the
learned Single Judge regarding payment of the amount due to the respondent
herein cannot be faulted with on any of the grounds raised in this writ appeal.
13. Hence, we do not find merit in this writ appeal and the same is, therefore,
dismissed.
JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE
Comparing Assistant
