Gujarat High Court
Valiben Hirabhai Bajania vs Gujarat State Road Transport ... on 24 December, 1985
Equivalent citations: (1986)2GLR907
JUDGMENT A.P. Ravani, J.
1. By consent of the parties the matter is ordered to be heard today.
2. The petition is directed against the respondent-Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation which has failed to deposit the amount awarded in favour of the petitioner as per award dated March 21, 1985 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Kheda at Nadiad, in Motor Accident Claims Application No. 300 of 1982. As per the award, the respondent-corporation was required to pay Rs. 61,100/-with proportionate cost and with 6% interest till the amount is paid. It may be noted that in the award specific direction was given that the amount awarded shall be deposited with the Tribunal within four months from the date of the award failing which the petitioner would be entitled to claim interest at the rate of 9% per annum. Despite the aforesaid direction, the respondent-corporation has not deposited the amount with the Tribunal and hence this petition.
3. Earlier on December 13, 1985, by ad interim order, the respondent-corporation was directed to deposit the entire amount awarded to the petitioner with the Tribunal latest before December 23, 1985. Today, i.e. on 24-12-1985, when the matter is called out, the counsel for the respondent-corporation states that the amount required to be deposited as per the award must have been deposited with the Tribunal on December 23, 1985. The counsel for the respondent-corporation further states that in any case, if the amount is not deposited as stated above, the same will be deposited latest before December 31, 1985. In view of this statement, as far as this petition is concerned, nothing further remains to be done.
4. However, it is brought to my notice that in matters of payment of compensation where the amount is awarded by Tribunal and even when specific direction is given by Tribunal to deposit and/or to pay the amount awarded within the specified time limit, this direction is not complied with by the Corporation and sometimes by Insurance Companies also. This is really a very disappointing situation. The Corporation and/or Insurance Companies should see to it that the amount awarded by the Tribunal is deposited with the Tribunal as per the directions given by the Tribunal. Even if the Corporation and/or Insurance Companies are finding it administratively difficult to comply with the direction or for any other reason delay is being caused, this is a sphere where they should see to it that proper machinery is evolved and the direction given by the Tribunal is strictly complied with. Even in cases where there may not be any direction, it would be better if, as a matter of policy, the Corporation and/or Insurance Companies, may see to it that within a period of one month from the date of receipt of the copy of the award, the amount is deposited with the respective Tribunal. If this is not done, the claimants are likely to be put to further harassment and incur expenses which can be avoided by simple administrative device to be adopted by the Corporation and/or Insurance Companies. In such matters, it is hoped that even the Tribunal will see that the amount awarded by it is deposited with it by the respective defendants. It is also hoped that in such matters, the Tribunals would not adopt technical stance and would not drive the applicant to resort to the machimery of recover money as arrears of land revenue.
5. In such type of cases, it would be better if the Tribunals entertain executionapplication or even miscellaneous applications and issue notice to the Corporation and/or Insurance Companies and appropriate direction is given for compliance of the award. The Tribunals may well bring it to the notice of the erring public authorities that non-compliance of the direction given by it without sufficient cause may, in appropriate cases, amount to contempt of court. I am sure in such cases, whenever notice is issued the Corporation and/or Insurance Companies will not adopt legalistic and technical approach but will definitely try to mitigate the hardships of the claimants. Therefore, it is hoped and trusted that Tribunals will make honest and sincere efforts to see that the award is satisfied by the Corporation and/or Insurance Companies, as the case may be, without driving the claimant to resort to other machinery available to him.
6. In the result, in view of the statement made by the counsel for the respondent Corporation, the petition does not survive. Subject to the aforesaid observations and directions, the petition is rejected. Rule discharged with no order as to costs.