Case: Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Jaipur Vs. Smt. Poonam Pahwa and others

20, neither order XXXIII nor Section 25 of Civil Procedure Code have been made expressly applicable. Dr. Dhavan has taken pains in referring to a number of decisions of various High Courts where the underlying principles of Civil Procedure Code have been made applicable in the proceedings before the statutory judicial tribunals on the footing that such provisions of Civil Procedure Code are based on equitable principles for ensuring fair trial. 30. In Mathumi Mathai v. Hindustan Organic Chemicals Ltd., 1995(4) SCC 26, it has been held that Order XXI Rule 1 as amended in 1976 is applicable in executing the award made under the Land Acquisition Act after indicating the principle that if the decretal amount is deposited by the judgment debtor pursuant to the order of the Court and the judgment debtor has not given notice of such deposit to the decree holder and also does not specify the manner in which the amount should be appropriated, the decree holder will be entitled to appropriate the amount deposited by the judgment debtor towards interest and other expenses and the decree holder is not bound to adjust the same towards the principal. 31. In Prem Nath Kapur v. National Fertilizers Corporation of India, 1996(2) SCC 71, the decision in Mathunni Mathais case has been expressly overruled by a three Judges Bench of this Court on the finding that Order XXI Rule 1 being inconsistent with the provisions contained in Sections 34 and 28 of the Land Acquisition Act, Such provision of Civil Procedure Code cannot be extended to the execution of award made under the Land Acquisition Act. Dr. Dhavan has rightly contended that in Prem Naths case non applicability of Order XXI Rule 1 Civil Procedure Code on the score of inconsistency with provisions of Land Acquisition Act relating to awards under the said Act has been indicated and for the said reason, applicability of Order XXI, Rule 1 Civil Procedure Code as held in Mathunnis case has been overruled. But applicability of Order XXI Rule 1 Civil Procedure Code in other cases has not been doubted and the principle indicated in Mathunnis case has also not been discarded. On the contrary, it has been held in Prem Naths case that the decision of this Court in Meghraj v. Bayabai, 1969(2) SCC 274 since relied in Mathunnis case is applicable to a debtor and creditor in an ordinary civil suit governed by Civil Procedure Code. 32. It appears to us that the provisions of Order XXI Rule 1 are not in any way inconsistent with the provisions for awarding just and fair compensation in Motor Accident Claims. The real purpose of awarding just and fair compensation to the victim of the accident or the legal heirs of such victim will be fulfilled by applying the principle of Order XXI Rule 1 Civil Procedure Code so that the awardee is not deprived of the opportunity of gainfully utilising the amount under the award for want of notice about the deposit made by judgment debtor resulting in the sum remaining unutilised. In our view, therefore, there is no difficulty to apply the underlying principles under Order XXI, Rule 1 Civil Procedure Code in executing the award of compensation passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal and the Tribunal must be held to be competent to invoke the beneficial provisions of Order XXI Rule 1 Civil Procedure Code. 33. We may indicate here that before the amendment of Order XXI Rule 1 Civil Procedure Code by the Amending Act, 1976 on the question of liability of the judgment debtor to give notice when the decretal amount is deposited in Court, the High Courts took different views. In Laxminarayan Ganeshdas v. Ghasiraam Dalchand Palaliwal, AIR 1939 Nagpur 191, it has been held that where a decree orders the payment of a sum of money awarding interest until payment and the money is paid by payment into Court under the provision of Order XXI Rule 1, the interest does not run until notice has been given to the decree holder under Order XXI Rule 1 (2) but ceases to run from the date of such payment. Such view of the Nagpur High Court was dissented from in a later decision by the Kerala High Court in State of Kerala v. Mahadeva Iyer, AIR 1969 Kerala 8. The Kerala High Court in the said decision has held that where the interest is awarded by the decree on the decretal amount until payment, it does not cease to run merely by reason of the making of the deposit of the decretal amount into court unless it is followed up by the service of notice as required by Clause (2). It is only when the factum of deposit is brought to the knowledge of the decree holder by service of such notice that the deposit will amount to payment within the meaning of Order XXI Rule 1. In taking the said view, the Kerala High Court has relied on the decision of other High Courts (AIR 1932 Calcutta 111, AIR 1951 Bombay 394, AIR 1952 Trav. Cochin 236, AIR 1955 Madh Bha 126, AIR 1956 Trav. Cochin 46. 34. After the amendment of Order XXI Rule 1 in 1976, there is no scope for any controversy as to the liability of the judgment debtor when the decretal amount is deposited in Court but the notice of such deposit is not given to the decree holder. It is imperative that the judgment debtor has to give notice to the decree holder about deposit for the decretal amount. Since motor accident in the instant case, had taken place on May 7, 1983, Order XXI Rule 1 as amended in 1976 is clearly applicable. Even otherwise also, the provision of Order XXI Rule 1 being a procedural law, amended provisions of Order XXI Rule 1 are applicable even if the accident had taken place prior to 1976 because such amendment of procedural law is retrospective in its operation. 35.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 0

Explanation:
0[ds]In our view, Dr. Dhavan is justified in his submission that when Haryana has adopted the Punjab Motor Accidents Rules in 1972, it must be held that it has adopted the Punjab Rules as it stood on the date of adoption, namely, January 20, 1972. Order XXI of theCode of Civil Procedure has been expressly made applicable in Punjab Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal Rules by amending the Punjab Rules in June 1968 which was published in Gazette on July 12, 1968. Therefore, by adopting the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal Rules, 1964 in 1972, it should be held that Haryana has adopted the Punjab Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal Rules, 1964 as stood amended on the date of adoption.Order XXI Rule 1 Civil Procedure Code as amended in 1976 expressly provides that the judgment debtor shall give notice of the deposit of the decretal amount to the decree holder either through the Court or directly to the decree holder. The obligation of giving the notice to the decree holder is not absolved by simply depositing the amount without taking steps to ensure service of the notice of such deposit to the decree holder through Court or otherwise. Therefore, the appellant cannot escape its liability to pay interest to the decree holder for the period between the date of deposit of the decretal amount and the date of notice of such deposit of the decree holder.29.It appears to us that the provisions of Order XXI Rule 1 are not in any way inconsistent with the provisions for awarding just and fair compensation in Motor Accident Claims. The real purpose of awarding just and fair compensation to the victim of the accident or the legal heirs of such victim will be fulfilled by applying the principle of Order XXI Rule 1 Civil Procedure Code so that the awardee is not deprived of the opportunity of gainfully utilising the amount under the award for want of notice about the deposit made by judgment debtor resulting in the sum remaining unutilised. In our view, therefore, there is no difficulty to apply the underlying principles under Order XXI, Rule 1 Civil Procedure Code in executing the award of compensation passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal and the Tribunal must be held to be competent to invoke the beneficial provisions of Order XXI Rule 1 Civil Procedure Code.After the amendment of Order XXI Rule 1 in 1976, there is no scope for any controversy as to the liability of the judgment debtor when the decretal amount is deposited in Court but the notice of such deposit is not given to the decree holder. It is imperative that the judgment debtor has to give notice to the decree holder about deposit for the decretal amount. Since motor accident in the instant case, had taken place on May 7, 1983, Order XXI Rule 1 as amended in 1976 is clearly applicable. Even otherwise also, the provision of Order XXI Rule 1 being a procedural law, amended provisions of Order XXI Rule 1 are applicable even if the accident had taken place prior to 1976 because such amendment of procedural law is retrospective in its operation.