KUNWARJI Vs. NISAR KHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision has been preferred against the order of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Indore, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') dated 16. 11. 1990.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that on 20. 9. 1977 in the evening one Kunwarji was going on motor cycle with his son riding on the pillion from his village to Hatod and was on the Fulkaradia turning of the road. In the meantime a truck was coming from the opposite direction and was being driven by respondent No. 2. It dashed against the motor cycle as a result of which the motor cycle and the claimant's son were thrown away and the claimant sustained injuries on his face and right leg. The claimant sustained disfigurement of his face and his right leg below the knee had to be amputated. On a claim petition having been filed before the Tribunal by the claimant, the learned Tribunal on appreciation of evidence adduced in the case found that the motor accident was caused due to rash and negligent driving of truck by the driver, respondent No. 2. The claimant is an agriculturist aged about 35 years earning about Rs. 30,000/- per annum at the time of the accident and the Tribunal held him entitled to compensation amounting to Rs. 32,500/-, Aggrieved by the inadequacy of compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal the claimant filed an appeal for enhancement of the amount of compensation. The High Court allowed the appeal with costs and the award of the learned Tribunal was modified inasmuch as instead of Rs. 32,500 awarded as compensation by the learned Tribunal with interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum the appellant-claimant was held to be entitled to a compensation of Rs. 75,000/- with interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum from the date of the claimant's petition till realization. Out of the amount of Rs. 75,000/- determined as compensation, the amount of Rs. 50,000/-with interest was held to be payable by the insurer, respondent No. 3 and the balance of Rs. 25,000/- with interest was held to be payable by respondent Nos. 1 and 2. The entire amount awarded in appeal along with interest has been deposited in the court. Respondent No. 3, the insurance company, alleged that excess amount has been deposited by the insurer and now nothing remains to be paid to the claimant. The Tribunal on 16. 11. 1990 passed an order that immovable property of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 be attached for recovery of the amount of compensation from them as directed by the High Court in appeal and both the parties were required to submit documents in respect of their contention. Aggrieved by the said order of the Tribunal the present revision has been filed.

(3.) PETITIONER's contention is that the Tribunal failed to look into the facts that the insurance company did not deposit the full amount as per the award before the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court and wrongly assumed that full amount has been deposited. It has also been said that the Tribunal has committed an error in saying that the principle laid down in Meghraj v. Bayabai, AIR 1970 SC 161, is not beneficial to the petitioner in the present case. The direction given by the Tribunal is arbitrary. The learned Tribunal has said that there is no dispute on the point that the insurance company had deposited the entire amount of the award along with interest before the judgment of the High Court and the claimant had received it on 26. 8. 1981. Later on, the High Court in Misc. Appeal No. 213 of 1985 enhanced the amount of the award and fixed the liability of the insurance company to be Rs. 50,000/- with interest at the rate of 9 per cent. The difference between the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal and that of the Hon'ble High Court was also deposited with interest by the insurance company and therefore, the question of adjusting the amount first towards interest and then towards principal does not arise. The Claims Tribunal is of the view that once the entire amount of compensation along with interest was deposited in compliance of the High Court's order then there was no occasion for adjusting the amount towards interest first then towards principal. If excess amount had been deposited by the insurance company then it may be returned back to the insurance company and consequently the parties have been directed to adduce evidence in respect of their cases. The approach of the Tribunal is just and proper. There is no occasion for any interference. It is not a case of non-exercise of jurisdiction or wrong exercise of jurisdiction. The order does not call for any interference. The learned Tribunal has rightly said that it is a case of accounting for which parties have been directed to lead evidence in respect of their contentions. The revision is rejected.