Ansu Kumari vs Ashok Bohra and Others

Prasun Kumar Deb, J.—This revision petition has been preferred by the above named claimant-petitioner against the order dated 14.12.1998 passed by the 1st Additional Claims Tribunal, Hazaribagh in Claim Case No. 58 of 1985 whereby the prayer of the petitioner for directing the opposite party insurance company to pay a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- and odd towards the compensation amount, has been rejected and a modified order has been passed directing the Insurance Company to pay interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum on Rs. 55,000/- from 3.8.1985, that is, the date of application of claim till 5.3.1998.

A claim case was registered as mentioned above for and on behalf of the petitioner-claimant Ansu Kumari, a minor, for her disablement because of a motor accident which took place on 2.5.1985. The claim case was registered as Claim Case No. 58 of 1985 u/s 110A of the Motor Vehicles Act as was in vogue at the relevant time. The vehicle in question was insured with the opposite party No. 5, New India Assurance Co. Ltd. The claim case was contested and ultimately, by order dated 23.4.1993, claim case was allowed by granting compensation to the tune of Rs. 35,000/- together with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of institution of the claim petition till its realisation. The breakup of the compensation of Rs. 35,000/- was Rs. 20,000/-towards the expenses incurred in the treatment plus Rs. 15,000/- towards the permanent disability suffered in the left leg of the claimant.

The petitioner being disagreed with the grant of compensation, preferred Misc. Appeal No. 561 of 1993 (R) before this Court and a Bench of this Court, vide order dated 19.11.1997, revised/modified the amount of compensation by just enhancing Rs. 15,000/- to Rs. 70,000/- towards the permanent disability head. Other things remained intact, it may be mentioned here that after the award had been given by the Claims Tribunal, the Insurance Company had deposited a cheque on 17.9.1993 for a sum of Rs. 60,150/- but it appears from the records and also admitted by the learned Tribunal in the impugned order that the said deposit of the cheque was never intimated by the Insurance Company either to the claimant from the side of the Tribunal itself and, as such, the said cheque remained with the records till date.

After the enhancement of the amount of compensation towards the head of permanent disability by this Court in the miscellaneous appeal as mentioned above, a prayer was made from the side of the claimant by calculating the interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum on the whole amount and for a direction to the Insurance Company to pay the same. On such direction was given after hearing the claimant''s Counsel alone without giving any opportunity of hearing to the Insurance Company, the Insurance Company came up with a petition for review and the same had been disposed of by the impugned order dated 14.12.1998, wherein the learned Tribunal, after taking stock of things from the very beginning, held that the Insurance Company cannot be held liable for payment of interest on Rs. 70,000/- at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of the application till the date of realisation rather it held that such compensation is to be paid from 3.8.1985 up to 5.3.1998.

The only grievance of the claimant-petitioner is that the learned Court below has wrongly held the earlier amount of Rs. 60,150/- deposited by cheque to be a valid one as the same was never been intimated to the claimant and, as such, for giving of non-information to the claimant, such amount of deposit by the Insurance Company, cannot be construed as a valid deposit as per Order XXI Rule 1(2) of the Civil Procedure Code. It has been stated that after the amendment of Motor Vehicles Act, the procedure in the Civil Procedure Code, in the execution matters, had been made applicable for realisation of the compensation amount and, as such, Order XXI Rule 1(2) of the Civil Procedure Code, should be applicable in the present case also.

The provisions of Order XXI Rule 1(2) of the CPC runs as follows:

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.

He also relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Jaipur Vs. Smt. Poonam Pahwa and others, .

It is the submission of Mr. S.N. Lai, learned Counsel appearing for and on behalf of the claimant-petitioner that on the face of the records, no notice was given to the claimant and the cheque was lying with the Court itself. It appears that a petition was also filed along with the cheque. Then, it was clear that such cheque was filed in the Court after the claim case was finalised and not in any execution proceeding. In that view of the matter, there remains the duty of the Court also to inform the claimant to take the cheque. In that way, it cannot be said that the Insurance Company, when it showed its good gesture just after conclusion of the claim case by depositing the claimed amount along with interest then for default on the part of the claimant or the Court concerned, the Insurance Company cannot be saddled with interest running from the date of application till realisation. All these matters have been considered by the learned Court below in its impugned order and such order does not suffer from any jurisdictional error or any error on the face of it and, as such, there is no scope to interfere with the same by invokintg the jurisdiction u/s 115 of the Civil Procedure Code. It has now become the settled principle of law that even if there is any irregularity in the order, then also, the High Court shall not be allowed to interfere u/s 115 of the CPC unless there is jurisdictional error or error apparent causing miscarriage of justice. Thus, I find that the order of the Court below cannot be reversed by re-appreciating the cases of the parties under the narrow scope of Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code.

However, I find that some laches are definitely there from the side of the Insurance Company when it had not informed the claimant regarding the deposit of cheque in the year 1993 itself. In that way, it must compensate for the laches to the claimant-petitioner. As such, without interfering with the impugned order itself, I further impose a penalty of Rs. 10,000/- on the Insurance Company to be paid for the laches on its part to the petitioner-claimant within a period of two months from this date.

The revision petition is disposed of accordingly.