RAMANKUTTY MENON Vs. MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Whether the petitioner is entitled to interest on the compensation amount awarded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, from the date of deposit of the amount before the Tribunal till notice of such deposit is given to the petitioner or till the date of knowledge of such deposit, is the moot question for consideration.

(2.) The petitioner and his wife were awarded compensation of Rs. 2,42,400 with interest at 12 per cent thereon by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ernakulam in O.P. (MV) No. 466 of 1988 due to the death of their son in a motor traffic accident. The liability of the insurance company was limited to Rs. 1,50,000 and the rest of the amount had to be paid by the owner of the offending vehicle. The Tribunal passed the award on 22.11.1991. As per section 168 (3) of the Motor Vehicles Act of 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), the award amount had to be deposited as directed by the Tribunal within a period of one month from the date of the award. But the award amount was not deposited within the statutory period. On 14.2.1992 the petitioner filed LA. No. 2599 of 1992 for the issue of a certificate under section 174 of the Act to the District Collector for initiating the recovery proceedings. Copy of LA. No. 2599 of 1992 was given to the insurance company and on 2.3.93 it was submitted before the Tribunal on behalf of the insurance company that the amount due from the insurance company had already been deposited before the Tribunal on 14.2.1992. But notice regarding the above deposit was not given to the petitioner either on 14.2.1992 or at a later date. Hence the petitioner filed LA. No. 6212 of 1993 claiming interest on the compensation amount till the date of knowledge of the deposit. The Tribunal dismissed LA. No. 6212 of 1993 as per Exh. P-4 order dated 11.4.96 holding that the provisions under Order XXIV, Civil Procedure Code and the Civil Rules of Practice were not applicable to the Claims Tribunal and that the respondents were not bound to give notice of deposit of the compensation amount to the petitioners. Aggrieved by the above order the petitioner filed this original petition to quash Exh. P-4 order and for other consequential directions.

(3.) The owner of the offending vehicle had challenged the award by preferring M.F.A. No. 360 of 1992 before this court and the above M.F.A. was pending when the O.P. was filed. Hence the original petition was posted along with M.F.A. No. 360 of 1992 before this Bench. The M.F.A, had been disposed of separately.