C.R. No. 1360 of 2010 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No. 1360 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: 5.3.2010 Haryana Roadways, Delhi Depot ....Petitioner Versus Bijender Kumar Jain and others ...Respondents CORAM : Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present:- Mr. D.D. Gupta, Addl. AG Haryana. RAJESH BINDAL, J **** The challenge in the present petition is to the order dated November 21, 2009, passed by the learned Court below in execution of award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Karnal (for short 'The Tribunal') in favour of respondent No.1/claimant whereby the learned Tribunal directed the payment of amount of compensation along with interest, as was awarded by the Tribunal. Briefly the facts are that respondent No. 1/claimant filed a petition before the Tribunal claiming compensation on account of the injuries suffered by him in a motor accident involving the bus of Haryana Roadways. The Tribunal vide its award dated March 3, 1999 determined Rs. 40,000/- as the amount of compensation payable to the respondent No.1/claimant which was to be shared equally by Haryana Roadways and its driver on one part and the owner and driver of the Jeep and the Insurance Company on the other part. The claimant having not received the amount of compensation, execution petition was filed on October 19, 2007, in which the petitioner put a stand that sum of Rs. 30,521/- falling to the share of the petitioner was deposited in the court on June 3, 1999 and from that date onwards the petitioner is not liable to pay any interest. The claim of respondent No.1 was that he having not been informed about the deposit of money in the Court, was entitled to receive interest up to the date of payment to him. The Court having accepted the plea of the claimant directed payment of interest up to March 20, 2009 when it was reported for the first time by the Ahlmad of the Court that amount has been deposited by the petitioner in the Court. The petitioner being aggrieved is before this Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner in the present case having deposited the money in the Court should not be burdened with interest from that date onwards. The amount which was deposited on June 3, 1999 was the amount due against the petitioner in terms of C.R. No. 1360 of 2010 (O&M) -2- the award alongwith upto date interest. In case the decree holder failed to withdraw the amount the petitioner cannot be said to be at fault. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, I do not find any merit in the submissions made. A perusal of the impugned order passed by the Tribunal shows that no notice was given to the decree holder either by the judgment debtor/petitioner or even the Court. The fact that no notice regarding deposit of decretal amount in the Court was given by the petitioner to the decree holder is not disputed by learned counsel for the petitioner. Learned Court below directed for payment of interest upto March 20, 2009 the date on which for the first time a report was made by the Ahlmad that the amount has been deposited in the Court cannot be faulted with for the reason that Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Jaipur Vs. Smt. Poonam Pahwa and others, 1997 (2) Civil Court Cases 475 opined that in case no notice is issued to the decree holder regarding the deposit of decretal amount in the Court the liability of interest does not stop. It is only when this fact came to the notice of decree holder that he cannot claim interest for any period thereafter. No judgment taking a contrary view has been cited. For the reasons mentioned above, I do not find any merit in the present petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. Before parting with the order, from the facts of the present case it is evident on the face of it that there is prima-facie lapse on the part of the officials of the petitioner as well as the counsel who represented the petitioner before the learned Court below as no notice of the deposit of the decretal amount deposited was given to the petitioner, in the absence of which he was unable to withdraw the same. Perusal of the impugned order shows that even on the date when the order was passed only a clerk on behalf of the petitioner had represented as if the State is short of counsels to represent it before the Court. On account of aforesaid lapse, the petitioner has been burdened with the liability of interest from June 3, 1999 till March 20, 2009 which could very well be awarded. For this lapse in my opinion, an inquiry deserves to be conducted and responsibility of the guilty officials fixed and the amount also deserves to be recovered from the persons concerned after notice to them. A copy of the order be sent to Secretary Transport, Haryana, for doing the needful. (RAJESH BINDAL) 5.3.2010 JUDGE Reema C.R. No. 1360 of 2010 (O&M) -3- In CR No. 1360 of 2010 The above petition was disposed of by this court finally on 5.3.2010. However, while going through the copy of order passed in reference to some other case, it was noted that in third line from the bottom in penultimate paragraph of the order passed, the first word was mentioned as “awarded”, whereas it should have been “avoided”. The order passed by this Court on 5.3.2010 has been corrected under my signatures. Copy of the order passed today be sent to the Secretary, Transport, Haryana in continuation of the earlier order passed on 5.3.2010. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge 19.4.2010 mk