Uttarakhand High Court
United India Insurance Company Ltd vs Anita Devi on 4 November, 2025
Author: Rakesh Thapliyal
Bench: Rakesh Thapliyal
2025:UHC:9751
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
AT NAINITAL
Civil Revision No. 119 of 2025
United India Insurance Company Ltd. ......... Revisionist.
Versus
Anita Devi
and others. ...............Respondents.
Present:
None appears for the revisionist.
Mr. Hari Mohan Bhatia, learned counsel for the claimant.
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rakesh Thapliyal, J.
1. Today, in the morning a mention was made by Mr. H.M.
Bhatia, learned counsel for the respondent, and the matter is
posted at 12:00 PM but the learned counsel for the revisionist was
not present; then, again the matter was posted after lunch and
again learned counsel for the revisionist is not present. In such
view of the matter there is no option except to proceed exparte
agasint the revisionist.
2. The Motor Accident Claim Tribunal issued an award on
26.06.2013 passed in MACT Case No. 37 of 2009 awarding
compensation at the tune of Rs. 11,09,500/- along with 4% interest
from the date of institution of claim petition till final payment is
made. Against this award, two appeals were filed; one by the
Insurance Company i.e. Appeal from Order No. 345 of 2013 and
other one by the claimants i.e. Appeal from Order No. 462 of 2013
for enhancement of the amount of compensation. The Coordinate
Bench of this court disposed of both the appeals by a composite
order dated 12.02.2020 and the judgment and award dated
26.06.2013 passed by the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal/District
Judge, Pauri Garhwal in MACT Case No. 37 of 2009 was modified
2025:UHC:9751
to the extent that the Insurance Company shall now pay the
enhanced amount of compensation i.e. Rs. 11,64,500/- along with
7% interest per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition.
3. After this judgment, the execution application was moved
by the claimants and the amount of interest as ordered by the
Executing Court was deposited by the Insurance Company under
protest and then filed the writ petition. The writ petition was
converted to a civil revision by the Coordinate Bench by order
dated 28.10.2025 and the Insurance Company was granted liberty
file an application for condonation of delay since the writ petition
is converted to a civil revision and there is a limitation of 90 days.
On perusal of record, it reveals that no such delay condonation
application has been moved.
4. Learned counsel for the claimants Mr. H.M. Bhatia submits
that the issue as dealt with by the Executing Court is squarely
covered by the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
V. Kala Bharathi and Others vs. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.
2014 (5) SCC 577 and paragraph 22, 23 and 26 of this judgment are
relevant, which read as under:
"22. In Gurpreet Singh (supra), the Constitution Bench of this
Court had an occasion to consider the issue regarding execution
of money decree, the principle of appropriation and its
applicability, which was recently followed by this Court in
Bharath Heavy Electricals Ltd. v. RS Avthar Sing and Co. 2013(1)
RCR (Civil) 252:2012(5) Recent Apex Judgments (R.A.J.)
421:2013(1)SCC 243, and culled down the principles laid down in
Gurpreet Singh's case as follows:
a) The general rule of appropriation towards a decretal amount was
that
b) such an amount was to be adjusted strictly in accordance with the
directions contained in the decree and in the absence of such
directions, adjustment be made firstly towards payment of interest
and costs and thereafter towards payment of the principle amount
subject, of course, to any agreement between the parties.
2025:UHC:9751
c) The legislative intent in enacting sub-rules (4) and (5) is clear to the
points that interest should cease 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 sub
Clause (D).
d) If the payment made by the judgment debtors falls short of the
decretal amount, the decree holder will be entitled to apply the general
rule of appropriation by appropriating the amount deposited towards
the interest, then towards costs and finally towards the principal
amount due under the decree.
e) Thereafter, no further interest would run on the sum appropriated
towards the principal. In other words, if a
f) part of the principal amount has been paid along with interest due
thereon as on the date of issuance of notice of deposit of interest on the
part of the principal sum will cease to run thereafter.
g) In case where there is a shortfall in deposit of the principal amount,
the decree holder would be entitled to adjust interest and costs first
and then balance towards the principal and beyond that the decree
holder cannot seek to reopen the entire transaction and proceed to
recalculate the interest on the whole of the principal amount and seek
for re-appropriation.
23. In the judgment referred to by the High Court in the
impugned judgment, this Court and the Privy Council
consistently have taken a view that in case of appropriation of
amount unless the decree contains a specific provision, the
amounts have to be appropriated as contemplated under Order
21 Rule 1. If there is a shortfall in deposit, the amount has to be
adjusted towards interest and costs, then it has to be adjusted
towards principal. The High Court has failed to appreciate this
fact and misdirected itself in observing that these judgments are
prior to the amendment to Order 21 Rule 1. In our considered
view, as far as this aspect is considered, there is no much
difference in the provisions prior to or subsequent to the
amendment, because in the objects and reasons for amendment
to Order XXI Rule 1, as observed by the Constitution bench in
Gurpreet Singh the legislative intent in enacting Sub-rules (4)
and (5) is that interest should cease on the deposit being made
and notice given or on the amount being tendered outside the
court in the manner provided. The intent of the rule making
authority is to leave no room for any frivolous pleas of payment
of money due under a money decree.
26. In view of above and more particularly keeping in view
the ratio of the Constitution Bench judgment in Gurpreet Singh
(supra), where considering an identical question in respect of
Order XXI Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, it was held that
if the amount deposited by the judgment debtor falls short of the
decretal amount, the decree-holder is entitled to apply the rule of
appropriation by appropriating the amount first towards
2025:UHC:9751
interest, then towards costs and subsequently towards principal
amount due under the decree; we are of the opinion that the
Appellants herein are entitled to the amount awarded by the
Executing Court, as the amounts deposited by the judgment
debtor fell short of the decretal amount. After such
appropriation, the decree-holder is entitled to interest only to the
extent of unpaid principal amount. Hence, interest be calculated
on the unpaid principal amount."
5. I peruse the order passed by the Executing Court and the
judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court and this court is of
the opinion that there is no infirmity in the order passed by the
Executing Court. The issue as dealt with by the Executing Court is
squarely covered by the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the
case of V. Kala Bharathi and Others vs. The Oriental Insurance
Co. Ltd. 2014 (5) SCC 577.
6. In view of the observation as above, I do not find any merit
in the instant civil revision and is, accordingly, dismissed being
devoid of merit.
(Rakesh Thapliyal, J.)
04.11.2025
PR
