IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 1ST SEPTEMBER 2008 / 10TH BHADRA 1930 WP(C).No. 8444 of 2008(E) ------------------------- OPMV.551/1982 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM .................... PETITIONER: --------------- J.V. SURENDRAN, S/O. VASU, AGED 62 YEARS, RESIDING AT THAIKKODATHIL HOUSE, PONNURUNNI,POONITHURA VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.R.RAJAGOPAL SRI.TOJAN J. VATHIKULAM RESPONDENTS: ------------------ 1. THE KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, TRANSPORT BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY SRI.K.PRABHAKARAN, SC, KSRTC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. =============== W.P.(C) NO. 8444 OF 2008 E ==================== Dated this the 1st day of September, 2008 J U D G M E N T In this writ petition, the prayer sought for by the petitioner is to direct the 2nd respondent to initiate recovery proceedings for realising the amounts that are due to the petitioner as indicated in Ext.P7 statement. 2. Facts of the case are that the petitioner was one of the claimants in OP(MV) No.551/82 filed before the MACT, Ernakulam. Award was passed by the Tribunal granting compensation of Rs.20,360/- plus interest at 12% and costs. In order to get the amount recovered, EP No.181/04 was filed. Objections were not filed and revenue recovery steps were ordered. Accordingly certificate of recovery was also issued, which is Ext.P2. Still, payment was not forthcoming and therefore the petitioner filed a writ petition before this court resulting in Ext.P3 judgment in WP(C) No.13844/06 where the submission that the amount will be paid within two months was recorded and the case was disposed of. 3. Still later, KSRTC sought review of the judgment by filing RP No.719/06 and that was disposed of by Ext.P4, leaving it open to them to seek quantification of the amount by making appropriate application WPC 8444/08 :2 : before the Tribunal itself. Accordingly IAs were filed before the Tribunal and that resulted in Ext.P5. A reading of Ext.P5 shows that the dispute was centered around the interest that was claimed. Any how, applications were dismissed with costs. Thereafter, yet another application was filed by the petitioner in the EP that was already closed and Ext.P6 order was passed by the Tribunal directing to expedite recovery proceedings. 4. In the meantime, though some payments were made by the KSTRC, as according to the petitioner, that did not satisfy the award and as further recovery proceedings were not progressing, this writ petition has been filed. As per Ext.P7 statement filed by the petitioner, still an amount of Rs.36,110.70/- remains outstanding as on 11/3/2008. It is to get this amount recovered, the writ petition is filed. 5. KSRTC on the other hand in its statement disputes the liability on the ground that what is claimed by the petitioner is interest on interest. 6. Referring to Ext.P7, learned counsel for the petitioner rightly points out that the demand they made therein is not interest on interest but interest is claimed only on principal. He is also referring to the judgment of this court in Sobha Mohan Kumar v. National Insurance Co.Ltd(2002(3) KLT 293) where it has been held that compensation WPC 8444/08 :3 : amount deposited has to be appropriated in accordance with the procedure contemplated under Order XXI, Rule 1(1) of the C.P.C. 7. Having considered the submissions made by both sides, I am inclined to agree with the counsel for the petitioner. A perusal of Ext.P7 shows that on appropriation of the amount deposited by the Corporation before the Tribunal on 18/7/1987, irrespective of the mode of appropriation, balance due to the petitioner was Rs.12,229.40/- and interest is calculated on such due. An analysis of Ext.P7 shows that the calculation made by the petitioner is not interest on interest and therefore his claim is a legitimate one. He is also supported by the judgment referred to above. If that be so, the appropriation made by the petitioner as on 18/7/87 much more thereafter cannot be faulted. Writ petition is disposed of directing that the amount due to the petitioner shall be recovered and paid, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within 4 months of receipt of a copy of this judgment. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp