Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Harku Devi And Ors. on 17 November, 1989
Equivalent citations: 1991ACJ249, 1990WLN(UC)92
JUDGMENT Milap Chandra, J.
1. This appeal has been filed under Section 110-D, Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 against the order of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jodhpur, dated June 15,1989 passed in Misc. Case No. 29-B of 1988.
2. On September 22, 1982 an award of Rs. 50,850/- was passed with interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum by the Motor Accidents Claims ribunal, Jodhpur. Appealsz were preferred by the appellant insurance company, owner and driver of the vehicle. The respondent Nos. 1 to 5 preferred cross-objections. After hearing the parties, the appeals were dismissed and the cross-objections were partly accepted by this court on May 26, 1988.
3. The amount of compensation was enhanced to Rs. 63,000/- and the liability of the insurance company was limited upto Rs. 50,000/- with proportionate interest and costs. Interest was also enhanced from 9 per cent to 12 per cent.
4. An application was moved by the claimants that the insurance company deposited Rs. 50,000/- in the Tribunal on April 5, 1983 and Rs. 86,525/- are still outstanding against it and it may be directed to pay the same. The insurance company did not file any reply to this application. On June 5, 1989, the Tribunal directed the insurance company to deposit the amount which may be considered to be outstanding by it otherwise coercive steps for the recovery of the amount would be taken against it. On June 6, 1989, the insurance company deposited a cheque of Rs. 49,549/- in the Tribunal along with its reply stating that the amount of Rs. 50,000/- deposited on April 5,1983 could not be appropriated towards interest and costs and the same was deposited towards the amount of compensation. After hearing the parties, the learned Tribunal held that the (Sic. amount deposited by the) insurance company on April 5, 1983 has to be appropriated first towards interest and costs and accordingly, directed the insurance company to further make payment of Rs. 37,901/- by its order under appeal.
5. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the Tribunal seriously erred in appropriating the said amount of Rs. 50,000/- deposited on April 5, 1983 towards the interest and not towards the amount of compensation of Rs. 50,000/-. He further contended that Rs. 25,000/- were withdrawn by the claimants out of the said amount of Rs. 50,000/- deposited in the court and this withdrawal has not been taken into consideration by the Tribunal while passing the impugned order.
6. The learned counsel for the claimants duly supported the order under appeal.
7. Admittedly, Rs. 50,000/- were deposited by the insurance company on April 5,1983 in compliance with the said order passed by this court on March 7, 1983 in its appeal. In the memorandum of the present appeal, it has nowhere been stated that this amount of Rs. 50,000/- was deposited in the Tribunal saying that it was to be appropriated first towards principal amount of compensation and not towards the amount of interest and costs. There is also nothing on the record to indicate that this amount of Rs. 50,000/- was deposited by the insurance company for being appropriated first towards principal amount of compensation. It has been observed in Meghraj v. Bayabai AIR 1970 SC 161, para 6, as follows:
But the normal rule is that in the case of a debt due with interest any payment made by the debtor is in the first instance to be applied towards satisfaction of interest and thereafter to the principal.
It cannot, therefore, be said that the Tribunal committed an error in appropriating the said amount of Rs. 50,000/- first towards interest and costs.
8. There is also no force in the second contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the Tribunal did not take into consideration the withdrawal of Rs. 25,000/-by the claimants. Admittedly, the claimants withdrew the amount of Rs. 25,000/- on December 7, 1983 from the said amount of Rs. 50,000/- deposited on April 5,1983 by the insurance company. It is clear from the calculations shown in the order under appeal that interest to the extent of Rs. 49,550/- had accrued on Rs. 50,000/- from January 2,1975 (the date from which the interest has been awarded) to April 5, 1983 (date of deposit of Rs. 50,000/-). Legally, the deposit of Rs. 50,000/-on April 5,1983 could not be held to be payment to the claimants in view of the following observations made in P.S.L. Ramanathan Chettiar v. O.R.M.P.R.M. Ramanathan Chettiar AIR 1968 SC 1047, at page 1050, para 15:
The last contention raised on behalf of the respondent was that at any rate the decree-holder cannot claim any amount by way of interest after the deposit of the money in court. There is no substance in this point because the deposit in this case was not unconditional and the decree-holder was not free to withdraw it whenever he liked even before the disposal of the appeal. In case he wanted to do so, he had to give security in terms of the order. The deposit was not in terms of Order 21, Rule 1, Civil Procedure Code and as such, there is no question of the stoppage of interest after the deposit.
9. It is clear from the award of the Tribunal dated September 22, 1982 that the insurance company and other respondents were made liable for the payment of interest till the date of the recovery of the amount of compensation by the claimants. It is further clear from the stay order of this court dated March 7,1983 that the claimants were permitted to withdraw Rs. 25,000/- on furnishing solvent security to the satisfaction of the Tribunal. As such it cannot be said that the amount of Rs. 50,000/- stood paid to the claimants or recovered by them by its mere deposit in the Tribunal on April 5, 1983. Admittedly, the amount of Rs. 25,000/- was withdrawn after about 8 months of the deposit of Rs. 50,000/-. As such the withdrawal of Rs. 25,000/- on December 7,1983 does not go to affect calculations given in the order under appeal. Thus there is no force in the appeal.
10. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed with costs.