IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No.82 of 2001 Decided on: 9.12.2010 United Insurance Co. …..Petitioner VERSUS Smt.Sharda Devi Rettola and others …..Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?No For the petitioner: Mr.Sanjeev Kuthiala, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr.Neeraj Gupta, Advocate for respondents No.1 to 5. Deepak Gupta,Judge (Oral) The respondents No.6 and 7 were represented by Mr.Vinod Sharma, Advocate who has unfortunately expired. In my view, there is no need to issue fresh notices to the respondents No.6 and 7 who are owner and driver of the vehicle since the dispute is only between the Insurance Company and the claimants. This petition is directed against the order dated 12.7.2001 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Shimla. The main grievance of the petitioner, raised in the petition, is that since the matter was settled by way of compromise, the learned MACT could not have directed payment of interest. The undisputed facts of the case are that on 29.6.2001 a written statement was filed on behalf of the Insurance Company duly signed by the Divisional Manager in which it was stated that the Insurance Company is ready and willing to pay Rs.3,70,000/- as full and final compensation in the case. It appears that since some of the claimants were minor, an application under Order 32 Rule 7, CPC was filed. Thereafter, on 12.7.2001 after considering this application, the learned MACT came to the conclusion that the compromise was for the benefit and interest of the minors. Thereafter, the learned Tribunal directed that this amount of Rs.3,70,000/- would be paid to the claimants alongwith interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing of the petition, i.e., 4.12.1998 till date of deposit/payment of the aforesaid amount. However, it was clarified in the later part of the order itself that in case the Insurance Company deposits the aforesaid amount with the Tribunal within 45 days from the date of the order, i.e., 12.7.2001 then it would not be liable to pay any interest whatsoever. Basically the learned Tribunal was only ensuring the payment of the awarded amount within a particular time. The Insurance Company on 29.6.2001 itself had agreed to pay this amount and on 12.7.2001, the learned Tribunal granted further period of 45 days to the …2… Insurance Company to deposit the same. It is because the Insurance Company did not deposit this amount within 45 days that has become liable to pay interest thereupon. In my view, though in a compromise, interest is not normally to be awarded but to ensure that the compromise is complied with in letter and spirit, the Court can always put a default clause that in case the compensation is not paid within a particular period then the amount of compensation would carry interest. There is nothing illegal in the order of the learned MACT and the petition is, therefore, dismissed. No order as to costs. December 9, 2010 ( Deepak Gupta ) (m) Judge …3…