IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA Civil Revision No. 47 of 2009 Civil Revision No. 48 of 2009 & Civil Revision No. 49 of 2009. Date of Decision: 09.12.2010. Civil Revision No. 47 of 2009. HP State Civil Supplies Corporation …Petitioner/JD. Versus. United India Insurance Company …Respondent/DH. Civil Revision No. 48 of 2009. HP State Civil Supplies Corporation …Petitioner/JD. Versus. United India Insurance Company …Respondent/DH. Civil Revision No. 49 of 2009. HP State Civil Supplies Corporation …Petitioner/JD. Versus. United India Insurance Company …Respondent/DH. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, Judge. Whether approved for Reporting? No. _____________________________________________________ For the Petitioner/JD Mrs. Bhavana Dutta, Advocate in all the cases. For Respondent/DH Mr. Lalit K. Sharma, Advocate in all the cases. Deepak Gupta, J . (oral) These three petitions are being disposed of by a common judgment since common questions of law and fact arise in these three cases. ....2.... 2. The undisputed facts are that a vehicle belonging to the HP State Civil Supplies Corporation met with an accident. The learned MACT in the awards passed by it held the insurance company liable to pay the awarded amount. The insurance company during the pendency of the main petition had deposited some amount under no fault liability. It had deposited some amount at the time of filing of appeal. The insurance company further deposited the balance amount along with interest when directed by this court. 3. This court disposed of the appeals of the insurance company and held the insurance company not liable to pay the amount of compensation and directed that the insurance company would be entitled to recover the amount deposited by it from the HP State Civil Supplies Corporation. It was further ordered that it shall be entitled to recover the amount deposited along with interest by filing execution petition(s) before the learned MACT concerned. 4. Certain amounts were deposited by the HP State Civil Supply Corporation in the Registry of this Court. According to the insurance company the amount deposited was not the full amount and therefore it filed execution petitions to recover the balance amounts. These executions petitions have been allowed and in Execution Petition No.12/2006 the petitioner has been directed to make good the deficiency of Rs. 1,04,497/-; in Execution Petition No. 14/2006 the amount of deficiency calculated is Rs. 1,02,471/- and in Execution Petition No. 13/2006 the deficiency has been ....3.... found to be Rs. 1,04,497/-. It is contended that the calculations have not been properly made. 5. As far as Civil Revision Petition No. 47/2009 is concerned, the revised calculations on page 2 of the order are correct as far as item Nos. 1,2 and 3 are concerned. However, as far as item No. 4 is concerned, the calculations are not correct, since the insurance company is claiming interest on the entire deposited amount of Rs. 6,91,454/- which not only includes the principal balance awarded amount, but also interest thereon. The insurance company will be entitled to interest only on the principal amount that is the awarded amount less the amounts deposited at Sr. Nos. 1,2 and 3. The insurance company is not entitled to recover interest on interest. 6. In Civil Revision No. 48/2009, also there is no dispute with regard to the items Nos.1,2 and 3 at page 2 of the order like in the previous case. The amount of Rs. 6,81,121/- at Sr. No. 4 deposited on 29.8.2002 not only includes the balance awarded amount but also the amount of interest. The insurance company is not entitled to claim interest on interest and can only claim interest on the awarded amount. 7. In Civil Revision No. 49 of 2009 the position is also identical. Here also there is no dispute regarding items No. 1 to 3 at page 2 of the order. The amount at Sr. No. 4 of Rs. 6,81,121/- deposited on 29.8.2002 not only includes the balance awarded amount but also the amount of interest. The insurance company is ....4.... not entitled to claim interest on interest. All the three petitions are therefore allowed and the matters remanded to the executing Court who shall ensure that calculations are made in accordance with what has been laid down above. The petitions are disposed of accordingly. No costs. Deepak Gupta, Judge 9th December, 2010 (guleria)