BALWANT SINGH Vs. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHALLENGE in the present petition is to the order dated 13.2.2008 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ambala (for short, "the Tribunal"), whereby through an application filed the petitioner- claimant for correction of the date of institution from 8.1.1997 to 30.11.1989 in the award dated 15.6.1998 was allowed but it was further held that the petitioner shall not be entitled to any interest for the intervening period for the reasons stated in the impugned order.

(2.) BRIEFLY , the facts are that on account of an accident which took place on 18.2.1989, the petitioner suffered serious injuries. The claim petition was filed before the Tribunal on 30.11.1989 under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Notices were issued to the respondents. However, due to non-filing of process-fee, the claim petition was dismissed in default on 24.8.1990. The petitioner filed application for restoration which was also dismissed on 5.5.1995 by the Tribunal. The order dismissing the application for restoration was challenged before this court in Civil Revision No. 242 of 1996 which was allowed by this court vide order dated 26.11.1996 and the matter was remitted back to the Tribunal for decision on merits. The parties were directed to appear before the Tribunal on 8.1.1997. Vide award dated 15.6.1998, the claim petition filed by the petitioner was accepted by the Tribunal and compensation was assessed at Rs. 5 lacs along with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of the original petition till realization.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submitted that the award passed by the learned Tribunal on 15.6.1998 is quite explicit whereby the petitioner is held entitled to compensation of Rs. 5 lac along with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of the original petition till realization. The Insurance company being aggrieved against the award, filed appeal before this court. The same was dismissed and the award was upheld. The only prayer made in the application was for correction in the award of the Tribunal dated 15.6.1998 the date of institution of the claim petition as was mentioned as 8.1.1997 though it should have been as 30.11.1989 as it is the date of filing of petition originally. Though initially it was dismissed in default but having been restored by this court vide order dated 26.11.1996 and directed the petitioner to appear before the Tribunal on 8.1.1997. Date of appearance given cannot be said to be date of institution of the petition. It was merely a date for the appearance of the parties before the Tribunal after the decision of petition filed by the petitioner challenging the dismissal of his application for restoration. He, however, submitted that vide impugned order the learned Tribunal while considering the contentions raised by the petitioner to the effect that there is an error in the mentioning of the date of institution of the claim petition in the title of the award as 8.1.1997 as against 30.11.1989, went on to consider as to whether the petitioner was entitled to interest for the intervening period when the petition was dismissed in default and ultimately restored by this court and after considering the issue, which was not before the learned Tribunal in the proceedings instituted by the petitioner, though directed that the correction be made in the date of institution of the claim petition as 30.11.1989, however, interest for the intervening period was not granted to the petitioner which is totally beyond the scope of Section 152 CPC, as merits of the controversy could not be gone into, after the award had been upheld by this court.