Civil Revision No.1796 of 2011(O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Revision No.1796 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision: July 4, 2011 The New India Assurance Company Ltd. .....Petitioner v. Jasbir Singh Wason and others .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.Deepak Suri, Advocate for the appellant. ..... RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gurgaon, (hereinafter to be referred as the `Tribunal) dated 15.12.2009, Annexure P3, vide which petitioner-Insurance Company was ordered to make payment of interest on the amount of `25,000/- for the period from 26.4.1993 till 30.6.2006. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the whole record carefully including the impugned order passed by learned Tribunal. Facts relevant for the decision of present revision petition are that respondent no.1-claimant had filed a petition for compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (hereinafter to be referred as the `Act') on account of injuries sustained by him in the accident involving vehicle No.DL-1C-5233, owned by respondent no.3 and driven by respondent no.2 and insured with present petitioner at the time of accident. Civil Revision No.1796 of 2011(O&M) -2- Learned Tribunal awarded `5 lacs as compensation alongwith interest @ 12% per annum from the date of institution of the petition till realization. Petitioner-Insurance Company filed appeal before this Court against the said award and at the time of filing appeal deposited `25,000/- as statutory deposit. Appeal filed by petitioner was dismissed by this Court on 21.8.2009. In execution filed by respondent no.1-claimant, claim has been satisfied by petitioner-Insurance Company and only dispute remained regarding payment of interest on the amount of `25,000/-, which was deposited by petitioner-Insurance Company in this Court at the time of filing of appeal. Claimant claimed interest on the amount of `25,000/- upto 30.6.2006 on the plea that he was having no knowledge about the said deposit in the High Court and that he came to know about the said deposit for the first time when this Court intimated him vide notice dated 22.6.2006 and thereafter, he had withdrawn the said amount on 30.6.2006. Hence, learned Tribunal has ordered the petitioner to pay interest on the said amount from 26.4.1993 till 30.6.2006 by observing as under:- “TDS Certificate handed over by the Insurance Company to the learned counsel for the D.H. However, learned counsel for the Insurance company could not satisfy me about knowledge of petitioners regarding deposit of Rs.25,000/- by it in the Hon'ble High Court while preferring FAO in the year 1996 because a perusal of photocopy of High Court Notice issued to the petitioner shows that for the first time they were asked to appear before the High Court on 24.3.1997, they automatically came to know about deposit of Civil Revision No.1796 of 2011(O&M) -3- Rs.25,000/- by it, is completely devoid of any merit because there is no such mention in the said notice. The claim petition was filed by the petitioners on 26.4.1993 and the impugned award was passed on 7.3.1996. Thereafter the JD deposited payment and the same was withdrawn by the petitioners from the Court. Since the petitioners had no knowledge till 30.6.2006 about deposit of the amount of Rs.25,000/- by the Insurance Company in the Hon'ble High Court, therefore, they are well entitled for interest on the said amount from 26.4.1993 till 30.6.2006. It is ordered accordingly. Now to come up on 4.1.2010 for payment. Sufficient reasons have been given by learned Tribunal in ordering for payment of interest to the claimant on the amount of `25,000/- from 26.4.1993 till 30.6.2006. Claimant cannot be made to suffer due to inaction on the part of the petitioner-Insurance Company. He had withdrawn the amount of `25,000/- on 30.6.2006 when intimation was given to him by this Court. No intimation was given to him regarding the said deposit by the petitioner at any time. It has been rightly observed by learned Tribunal, Gurgaon, that notice to claimant cannot be presumed regarding statutory deposit of `25,000/-, as has been argued by learned counsel for the petitioner. In view of the aforementioned facts, it cannot be said that any illegality or material irregularity has been committed by learned Tribunal, Gurgaon, in passing the impugned order or that a grave injustice or gross failure of justice has occasioned thereby, warranting interference by this Civil Revision No.1796 of 2011(O&M) -4- Court. Moreover, law has been well settled by Hon'ble Apex Court in Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chander Rai and others, 2003(6) SCC 675 : AIR 2003 SC 3044: 2004(1) RCR (Civil) 147, that supervisory jurisdiction is not available to be exercised for indulging in re-appreciation or evaluation of evidence or correcting the errors for drawing inference like a Court of appeal. It has been observed as under:- “Be it a writ of certiorari or the exercise of supervisory jurisdiction, none is available to correct mere errors of fact or of law unless the following requirements are satisfied : (i) the error is manifest and apparent on the face of the proceedings such as when it is based on clear ignorance or utter disregard of the provisions of law, and (ii) a grave injustice or gross failure of justice has occasioned thereby.” Hence, the present revision petition is, hereby, dismissed being devoid of any merit. 4.7.2011 (Ram Chand Gupta) meenu Judge