Dr. Rajeev Dhavan, learned Senior companynsel at the request of this Court, has appeared as amicus curiae in this appeal.
The decree holders, therefore, made a claim for further interest at the said rate of 12 from the date of deposit till the decree holder got the information about such deposit made by the judgment debtors.
For the said companytention, Dr. Dhavan has drawn the attention of the Court to Section 110 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 and companyresponding Section 165 of the Motor Vehicles Act of 1988.
A claim petition was filed on August 23, 1983 by respondent No.
Such companytentions, however, have been rejected by the Tribunal in the execution proceedings.
Rules have been framed under Section 111 A of the Motor Vehicles Act.
The Accidents Claim Tribunal passed an award in favour of the claimants, namely, Smt.
Poonam Pahwa and her minor son and daughter and against the respondent including the appellant Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation hereinafter referred to as the Corporation for a sum of Rs.2.5 lacs with 12 interest from the date of filing of the claim petition till actual realisation.
3,36,111.30 on June 27, 1986 and the decree holders came to know about such deposit only on April 19, 1989.
3,36,111.30 on June 27, 1986 in the executing Court companyprising the decretal award of companypensation and interest calculated on the decretal award upto the date of deposit of the said decretal amount.
The appellant Corporation deposited a cheque of Rs.
For such companytention, reference has been made to Section 110 F of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 and companyresponding Section 175 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
In the State of Punjab, Order XXI was inserted in Rule 20 June 21, 1968 and published in the Gazette on July 12, 1968.
By the impugned judgment, the Review Petition has been dismissed by the High Court.
It is an admitted position that decree holder were number informed either by the Court or by the judgment debtor about the deposit of the said sum of Rs.
The appellant Corporation thereafter moved a Revision petition before the Punjab and Haryana High Court against the order passed by executing companyrt for depositing further sum on account of the interest to be paid by the judgment debtors from the date of deposit of the said decretal amount till the date when decree holders had got the information of such deposit.
Dr. dhavan has submitted that procedurally the Tribunal is supposed to act by way of summary procedure as it thinks fit Section 110 C of Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 and Section 169 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 .
Such claim was opposed by the appellant Corporation by companytending inter alia that there was numberobligation of the appellant Corporation to give intimation to the decree holders about the deposit made by the Corporation and the provisions of Order XXI Rule 1 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure is number applicable in respect of the award passed by the Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal and in any event if the Court had failed to give the intimation of such deposit, the judgment debtors would number suffer any prejudice on account of the mistake companymitted by the companyrt.
RNB 7720 of the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation.
Heard learned companynsel for the parties.
with him for the appellant P. Mukherjee, Adv.
NP for the Respondents.
The relevant facts of the case are that an accident had taken place May 7, 1983 in which one Shri Subhash Chand Pahwa who was travelling in the bus belonging to the appellant Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation from Jaipur to Delhi died due to accident by companyliding with a truck.
Nos.4 6 J U D G M E N T The following Judgment of the Court was delivered N. RAY, J. Leave granted.
Adv A.C. , Gopal Singh, Anis Ahmad, Sushil Kumar Jain, Advs.
Ms. Lalita Kaushik Adv.
1, 2 and 3, namely, the widow, minor son and daughter of the deceased against the appellant and respondent No.4, Shri Deepak Thakur who was the driver of Truck No.
HRU 2995, respondent No.5, Shri Durga Prasad Parnami, the owner of the said truck, respondent No.6 M s New Delhi Assurance Company limited and respondent No.7, Ami Chand being the driver of bus No.
Section 111A of Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 and Section 176 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 .
