1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA MISC. CIVIL APPLICATIONS NO. 72 OF 2008 AND 192 OF 2008 IN FIRST APPEAL NO. 264 OF 2004 MISC. CIVIL APPLCIATION NO. 72 OF 2008 Smt. Kamalavati Kamalakant Chibde & anr. .... Applicants V/s Mr. Manuel Caitan Gonsalves .... Respondent Mr. Amrut Kansar, Advocate for the Applicants. Ms. Vijeta Poulekar, Advocate for the Respondent. MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 192 OF 2008 Manuel Caetano Gonsalves .... Applicant V/s Smt. Kamlavati Chibde & Anr. .... Respondents Ms. Vijeta Poulekar, Advocate for the Applicant. Mr. Amrut Kansar, Advocate for the Respondents. CORAM : N.A. BRITTO, J. DATE : 14th MARCH, 2008 P.C.: Heard learned Counsel on behalf of both parties. 2. The First Appeal no. 264/2004, arising from the claim petition, was settled before the Lok Adalat on 17/02/2007, for a sum of Rs. 2,25,000/-. In other words, the respondents Smt. Kamlavati Chibde and her daughter Ms. Prachana Chibde were entitled to receive the said sum of Rs. 2,25,000/- in terms of the said award. Thereafter, in terms of the order of this Court dated 17/08/2007, in M.C.A. No. 542/2007, they were required to be paid the said amount of Rs. 2,25,000/-, along with accrued interest and, accordingly, each 2 of them have been paid a sum of Rs. 1,25,701/- i.e. Rs. 2,25,000/- in all, with accrued interest. 3. The said claimants namely, Smt. Kamlavati Chibde and Ms. Prachana Chibde now claim an amount of Rs. 2,25,000/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of the claim application i.e. from 29/05/1999 amounting to Rs. 3,06,000/- which was deposited before this Court. The appellant seeks refund of the balance amount of Rs. 90,726/-, which remains after the said claimants have been paid of, pursuant to the order of this Court dated 17/08/2007. 4. In my view, the said claimants having settled their claim before the Lok Adalat for Rs. 2,25,000/-, as on the date of settlement, they would not be entitled to any further interest, prior to the date of the said settlement or from the date of their claim application, as sought on their behalf. On the other hand, the appellant would certainly be entitled to receive the balance of Rs. 90,726/-, which has remained unpaid, after the claim of the claimants has been satisfied. Accordingly, application dated 4/03/2008 is allowed in terms of prayer clause 'a' and application dated 26/12/2007 is dismissed. N.A. BRITTO, J. NH/- .