JUDGMENT D. Raju, C.J.—The above application had been filed by the claimants in M.A.C. Petition No. 29-S/2 of 1991 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (I), Solan, who were respondents 1 and 2 in FAO No. 325/92 which came to be finally disposed of by this Court on 13.8.1998. The appeal (FAO, No. 325/92 was filed by the H.P. Road Transport Corporation against the award passed by the Accident Claims Tribunal in the Court below awarding a sum of Rs. 5,60,000/- with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of claim petition till the date of payment with further default interest @ 15% per annum, if the amount of compensation awarded was not remitted within 30 days. While allowing the appeal, this Court determined the compensation payable to the claimants at Rs. 2,75,000/- with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of claim petition till the date of payment. It is in such circumstances, the application for release of the amount as noticed above came to the filed. It is stated in the application that the applicants-claimants before the Court below are entitled to the balance of Rs. 2,20,401, in addition to the amounts already released in their favour. 2. The respondents in this application the appellants in FAO No. 325/92 has filed a reply stating that the claim petition in respect of the accident which occurred on 7.2.1992 was filed on 13.4.1992 before the Court below, that a sum of Rs. 25,000/- was deposited with the Accident Claims Tribunal, Solan on 24.7.1992 towards no fault liability and the award has been passed by the Accident Claims Tribunal on 1.10.1992. At the time of filing of the appeal, further sum of Rs. 25,000 was deposited on 30.10.1992 with the Tribunal and in terms of the orders passed by this Court on 11.12.1992, after the filing of the appeal another sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- were deposited on 3.4.1993 and in view of the above, the resultant position relating to the interest on the amount decreed/awarded to the claimants-applicants would be as follows : “Sr. No. Particulars Amount Rs. 1. Interest @ 12% per annum on the sum of Rs. 2,75,000/- from 13.4.92 i.e. date of filing of petition till 24.7.1992 when amount of Rs. 25,000/- was deposited. 9,166.77 2. Interest @ 12% per annum on the @ balance amount of Rs. No. Particulars Amount Rs. 1. Interest @ 12% per annum on the sum of Rs. 2,75,000/- from 13.4.92 i.e. date of filing of petition till 24.7.1992 when amount of Rs. 25,000/- was deposited. 9,166.77 2. Interest @ 12% per annum on the @ balance amount of Rs. 2,50,000/- from 25.7.1992 to 30.10.1992 when another sum of Rs. 25,000/-was deposited. 7,916.67 3. Interest @ 12% on the balance amount of Rs. 2,25,000/- from 31.10.1992 till 3.4.1993 when another sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- was deposited. 11,475.00 Total Rs. 28,558.44" On the above basis, it is further contended for the respondent-Transport Corporation that the claimants would be entitled only to a total sum of Rs. 3,03,558. 44paise and in as much as Rs. 3,50,000/ - has been actually deposited as on 3.4.1993, the excess amount of Rs. 46,441.56 paise deposited by the Transport Corporation is to be refunded and its is the balance remaining that it is to be payable and released to the claimants-applicants. 3. A rejoinder has been filed contending that a sum of Rs. 25,000/- deposited was without notice to the applicants and since the said amount has been also deposited under Orders of Court in fixed deposit which carried the interest only at 11% as against the entitlement of the claimants to get interest on the sum awarded at 12% interest, the applicants cannot be made to suffer the difference of 1% and, therefore, they are entitled to a sum of Rs. 1,95,401 plus interest till the date of payment and consequently the objection raised in the counter has no merit. 4. Heard learned Counsel on either side. Mr. K.D. Sood, learned Counsel placing reliance on the decision reported in Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation v. Poonam Pahawa and others (1997 ACJ 1049) reiterated the stand taken in the rejoinder that the applicants cannot be denied the difference of interest for the period when they were not, according to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, informed of the date of deposits. The learned Counsel for the Transport-Corporation while reiterating the factual statements made contended that the judgment relied upon will have no application to the case on hand particularly when in this case the claimants-applicants have entered caveat and, therefore, they were fully aware of the deposit at all stages and, therefore, there is no merit in the claim of the applicants for a large sum; nor are they could legitimately object to the release of the excess amount of Rs. 46,441.56 paise remitted by them and lying in credit. 5. We have carefully considered the submissions of the learned Counsel appearing on either side. The judgment on which strong reliance has been placed is one wherein, after the award has been passed, the Transport-Corporation therein deposited the amount by means of a cheque in the Executing Court comprising the decretal award of compensation and interest accrued on the decretal award upto the date of deposit of the said amount. The further fact noticed in the judgment of the apex court is that admittedly, the decree holders were not informed either by the Court or by the judgment debtor about the deposit of the said amount on the particular date i.e. 27.6.1986 and the decree-holders came to know of such deposit only on 19.4.1989 for nearly about 3 years. There was no appeal in that case also. It is in this context that in the Execution Petition when the claimants claimed interest at 12% per annum as awarded in the decree, the question about the applicability of Order 21, Rule 1(2) with the consequent obligation to give notice or otherwise came for consideration and it was held by their Lordships of the apex Court that the said provisions did apply and consequently the claimants were entitled to interest also for a further period from the date of deposit to the date when they came to know of the deposit. In our view this decision will have no direct application to the case on hand to countenance the claim of the applicants in the present case. Apart from the fact that a sum of Rs. 25,000/- has been deposited even during the pendency of the trial of the claim petition and the further deposit of the similar amount of Rs. In our view this decision will have no direct application to the case on hand to countenance the claim of the applicants in the present case. Apart from the fact that a sum of Rs. 25,000/- has been deposited even during the pendency of the trial of the claim petition and the further deposit of the similar amount of Rs. 25,000/- was made after the filing of the appeal and the final deposit was made pursuant to the order of this Court during the pendency of the appeal as noticed above, as has been rightly contended for the Transport-Corporation, in this case the claimants have filed caveat as early on 23.11.1992 in this Court and the factum of deposit made after the filing of the appeal are all found noticed in the orders passed from time to time and releases have also been ordered in portions in favour of the claimants during the pendency of the appeal. Section 173 mandates the deposit of minimum of Rs. 25,000/- to make the appeal entertainable. Unlike the case which was under consideration of their Lordships of the apex Court, wherein the amount has been deposited by the judgment-debtors in the Executing Court with no further reference and the matter has been lying for nearly about three years, apparently in the absence of filing any appeal or any such notice having been their Lordships have countenanced for such a claim. But as pointed out, in this case, caveat was entered through counsel, and therefore, the parties must be attributed with the knowledge of everyone of the happenings day to day and the orders passed from time to time by this Court also apart from the fact that without such deposit of at least Rs. 25,000/- the appeal could not have been files it is futile for applicants-claimants therefore to plead any ignorance of the deposits made on and at the relevant points of time as indicated above at any rate in this case. Consequently, the principles laid down by the apex Court in the judgment relied upon by the applicants cannot be viewed to enure to their benefit, in any manner and we over rule the objections raised in this regard and order the release of Rs. 46,441.56 paise to the Transport-Corporation and the balance to the claimants-applicants along with proportionate interest accrued on the fixed deposit receipt till the date of payment. 46,441.56 paise to the Transport-Corporation and the balance to the claimants-applicants along with proportionate interest accrued on the fixed deposit receipt till the date of payment. The application is accordingly disposed of. Order accordingly. -