Punjab-Haryana High Court
Suresh Devi vs The New India Asurance Co. Ltd. And ... on 9 August, 2023
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:103613
1
CR-449 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CR-449 of 2019
Reserved on: 14.07.2023
Date of pronouncement: 09.08.2023
Suresh Devi
......Petitioner
Versus
The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. And others
......Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAMIT KUMAR
Present: - Mr. Amit Kumar Jain, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Mr. Vinod Chaudhri, Advocate,
for respondent No.1-Insurance Company.
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
1 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:103613
CR-449 of 2019
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
2 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:103613
CR-449 of 2019
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,
Jaipur v. Poonam Pahwa, 1997(3) R.C.R.(Civil) 451; Bharat Heavy
Electricals Ltd. v. R.S. Avtar Singh and Co., 2013(1) R.C.R.(Civil)
252 and the judgment of Delhi High Court in Sobat Singh v. Ramesh
Chandra Gupta and another, 2010(14) R.C.R.(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; or
(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; or
(c) otherwise, as the Court which made the decree,
directs.
3 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:103613
CR-449 of 2019
(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 order or through
a bank under clause (a) or clause (b) of sub-rule (1), the
money order or payment through bank, as the case may
be, shall accurately state the following particulars,
namely-
(a) the number of the original suit;
(b) the names of the parties or where there are more
than two plaintiffs or more than two defendants, as
the case may be, the names of the first two plaintiffs
and the first two defendants;
(c) how the money remitted is to be adjusted, that is
to say, whether it is towards the principal, interest
or costs;
(d) the number of the execution case of the Court,
where such case is pending; and (e) the name and
address of the payer.
(4) On any amount paid under clause (a) or clause (c) of
sub-rule (1) interest, if any, shall cease to run from the
date of service of the notice referred to in sub-rule (2).
(5) On any amount paid under clause (b) of sub-rule (1)
interest, if any, shall cease to run from the date of such
payment:
Provided that, where the decree-holder refuses to accept
the postal order or payment through a bank, interest shall
cease to run from the date on which the money was
tendered to him, or where he avoids acceptance of the
postal money order or payment through bank, interest
shall cease to run from the date on which money would
have been tendered to him in the ordinary course of
4 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:103613
CR-449 of 2019
business of the postal authorities or the bank, as the case
may be."
7. In Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation's case
(supra) the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under: -
"25. Order 21 Rule 1 Civil Procedure code as amended in
1976 expressly provides that the judgment debtor shall
give notice of the deposit of the decretal amount to the
decree holder either through the Court or directly to the
decree holder. The obligation of giving the notice to the
decree holder is not absolved by simply depositing the
amount without taking steps to ensure service of the notice
of such deposit to the decree holder through Court or
otherwise. Therefore, the appellant cannot escape its
liability to pay interest to the decree holder for the period
between the date of deposit of the decretal amount and the
date of notice of such deposit of the decree holder.
x x x x
It appears to us that the provisions of Order 21 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 21 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 21, 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
5 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:103613
CR-449 of 2019
competent to invoke the beneficial provisions of Order 21
Rule 1 Civil Procedure Code."
8. From the reading of the above provisions and the law laid
down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it is clear that when the decretal
amount is deposited by the judgment-debtor in the Court, it is
imperative upon the judgment-debtor to give notice to the decree-
holder about the deposit of the decretal amount. The interest ceases to
run on the deposit made by the judgment-debtor and notice given or on
the amount being tendered outside the Court in the manner provided in
Order 21 Rule 1(b). However, the interest will not cease to run merely
by reason of making the deposit into Court unless it is followed by the
service of notice meaning thereby the decree-holder's right should be
affected only after he is informed that the decretal amount is available
for him and that he can draw it out of Court.
9. In the present case, no notice of deposit of amount of
award was given to the petitioner/claimants either by respondent No.1-
Insurance Company nor by the Tribunal. Thus, there is serious
violation of the principles laid down in Order 21 Rule 1 CPC by the
Insurance Company as well as the Tribunal, which resulted in
unreasonable delay in releasing the amount of award and loss of
interest to the petitioner/claimants. Consequently, the present revision
petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 17.11.2018 passed by
the Executing Court is set aside. In case the amount of interest has
been refunded to respondent No.1-Insurance Company, same shall be
6 of 7
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:103613
CR-449 of 2019
deposited with the Tribunal and notice of deposit shall be given to the
petitioner/claimants in accordance with Order 21 Rule 1 CPC.
(NAMIT KUMAR)
09.08.2023 JUDGE
R.S.
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether Reportable : Yes/No
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:103613
7 of 7
