Judgment :- 1. The petitioner in the above Civil Revision Petition is the claimant in MCOP No.285 of 2001 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal / Sub Judge, Bhavani. In the said MCOP, a sum of Rs.1,83,483/- was awarded as compensation for the injuries sustained by the petitioner herein. The payment of the court fee by the petitioner was dispensed with by the Tribunal, at the first instance. While passing the award on 14.03.2005, the Tribunal directed the claimant / petitioner herein to pay the court fee on the award amount within ten days. Thereafter, the respondent / Insurance Company had deposited a sum of Rs.2,81,357/- to the credit of the said MCOP on 09.08.2007. The Insurance Company had calculated the interest up to the date of deposit, namely, 09.08.2007. Thereafter, on 30.04.2008, the petitioner herein had filed a petition in I.A.No.734 of 2008 under Sections 148 and 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure to condone the delay of 1131 days in paying the court fee of Rs.1251.50. The Tribunal condoned the said delay, but disallowed the interest on the award amount from 24.03.2005 to 30.04.2008. Being aggrieved by that, the claimant / petitioner is before this Court. 2. Heard the learned counsel on either side. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that inasmuch as the respondent / Insurance Company had deposited the entire award amount with accrued interest up to date of the deposit, namely, 09.08.2007, by virtue of the order passed by the Tribunal in I.A.No.734 of 2008, depriving the interest for the period from 24.03.2005 to 30.04.2008, the petitioner is put to great hardship. He further submitted that as the petitioner was not well, he could not met his counsel and pay the court fee; since the delay in payment of court fee had been occasioned due to ill health of the claimant, he should not be penalised. 4. Countering the said submissions, the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the respondent / Insurance Company had deposited the entire award amount with accrued interest up to the date of the deposit, namely, 09.08.2007 and the Insurance Company has no objection for the petitioner to withdraw the said amount. He further submitted that this Court may decide the legality of the order passed by the Tribunal, since similar such instances frequently occur before various Tribunals. He further submitted that this Court may decide the legality of the order passed by the Tribunal, since similar such instances frequently occur before various Tribunals. He further submitted that unless and until the court fee is paid, as directed by the Tribunal, the decree will not be drafted by the Tribunal and unless the decree is drafted, the certified copies of the award and the decree will not be furnished to the claimant as well as the Insurance Company to enable them to prefer an appeal, if they so desire. Further, the learned counsel submitted that by delaying the payment of the court fee, the claimants will be taking advantage of the their own wrong and make a wrongful gain, as during the period between the last date for payment of court fee and the date of payment of the court fee, the claimant will be claiming interest on the award amount; it is well settled that a person cannot take advantage of his own wrong and cannot make any gain and therefore the claimant, who wilfully fails to pay the court fee as directed by the Tribunal, should not be allowed interest during such period. 5. In support of the aforesaid contention, the learned counsel brought to the notice of this Court, a Division Bench judgment of the Jharkhand High Court reported in the case of Parikh Engineering And Body v. Pramila Karwa and Others, reported in 2005 ACJ 2052 = 2004 (4) JCR 505 Jhr. The said judgment has been rendered by a Division Bench headed by the present Chief Justice of This Court, Mr. Justice M.Eqbal. In that decision, a claim petition was filed before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal against the owner of the vehicle involved in the accident without impleading the Insurance Company and it has been stated in the claim petition that the details of the Insurance Company are not available and the same will be furnished later. An exparte award was passed against the owner of the vehicle but the same was set-aside in appeal and the matter was remanded back to the Tribunal. An exparte award was passed against the owner of the vehicle but the same was set-aside in appeal and the matter was remanded back to the Tribunal. Immediately, thereafter, the owner of the vehicle filed an application furnishing the full details of the Insurance Company for impleading the Insurance Company as a party, but the claimants did not take any steps for about seven years and it was only on 06.04.2002, a petition was filed for impleading the Insurance Company as a party in the claim petition. The petition was allowed and thereafter the award was passed. So far as the interest part is concerned, the Tribunal directed for payment of interest by the Insurance Company from 06.04.2002 till the date of payment and so far as the interest prior to 06.04.2002 is concerned, the Tribunal held that the owner of the vehicle is liable to pay interest. That part of the award was challenged before the Tribunal. While considering the said question, the Division Bench has held as follows:- "5. Admittedly it is because of the sheer laches and negligence on the part of the claimants-respondents the Insurance Company was impleaded as party after about 11 years inspite of the fact that all the insurance particulars were furnished by the appellant as far back as in 1995. In our view, the Tribunal has committed serious error of law in holding that the interest for the period prior to 6.4.2002 is payable by the owner of the vehicle. Since it is clear case of negligence and laches on the part of the claimants we are of the view that no interest on the award amount is liable to be paid to the claimants till 5.4.2002." 6. In the judgment, dated 06.01.2010, rendered in OSA No.349 of 2009 (M/s. India Cements Capitals v. M/s. Mares Confectioneries Pvt. Ltd.), a Division Bench of this Court, while considering the question as to whether during the period of delay in representation of the winding up petition, the petitioner is entitled for interest. The Division Bench has held that during the period of delay in representation, the petitioner is not entitled to claim the interest on the claim. 7. I have considered the aforesaid submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials available on record. 8. The Division Bench has held that during the period of delay in representation, the petitioner is not entitled to claim the interest on the claim. 7. I have considered the aforesaid submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials available on record. 8. Admittedly, the award was passed on 14.03.2005 and in the award, the claimant / petitioner herein was directed to deposit the court fee of Rs.1251.50, within ten days from the date of the award, but, admittedly, the petitioner herein did not deposit the court fee. In the meantime, the respondent / Insurance Company had deposited the entire award amount together with accrued interest up to 09.08.2007 to the credit of the said MCOP and thereafter, on 30.04.2008, only, the petitioner herein filed I.A.No.734 of 2008 under Sections 148 and 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure to condone the delay of 1131 days in paying the court fee. While allowing the said petition, the Tribunal has held that the claimant shall not be entitled to claim interest from 24.03.2005 to 30.04.2008. 9. Now the question is whether the said order of the Tribunal is legally sustainable. 10. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the respondent, a party to the litigation cannot be allowed to take advantage of his own wrong or default and he cannot be allowed to make wrongful gain out of his own wrong. In this case, the petitioner ought to have deposited the court fee on or before 24.03.2005 as directed by the Tribunal, but the claimant had not deposited it, but had filed a petition to condone the delay of 1131 days only on 30.04.2008. The reasons stated by the petitioner in his affidavit is that as he was laid up with illness, he could not contact his counsel and pay the court fee. Though no acceptable medical evidence had been produced by the Tribunal, the Tribunal has allowed the petition in the interest of justice and passed the aforesaid order. 11. The reasons stated by the petitioner in his affidavit is that as he was laid up with illness, he could not contact his counsel and pay the court fee. Though no acceptable medical evidence had been produced by the Tribunal, the Tribunal has allowed the petition in the interest of justice and passed the aforesaid order. 11. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the respondent, unless and until the court fee is deposited, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal will not draft the decree in terms of the award and unless and until the decree is drafted, the certified copy of the same will not be furnished to either the claimant or the Insurance Company and in such an event, they will not be in a position to prefer an appeal, if they so desire. But at the same time, because of such delay, the Insurance Company will be mulcted up with liability to pay interest for the period during which the court fee is not paid. Therefore, unless the claimants are made to realise that if they do not pay the court fee in time as directed by the Tribunal, they will lose interest, they will take their own time in complying with the direction of the Tribunal in depositing the court fee. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that the order passed by the Tribunal is just, reasonable and legal. 12. In the decision of the Jharkhand High Court, referred to above, it has been held that for the period during which the Insurance Company was not impleaded as a party to the claim petition, the claimant is not entitled to claim interest. The said principle is applicable to the facts of this case. Similarly, the decision of the Division Bench, referred to above, holding that during the period of delay in representation of winding up petition, the petitioner is not entitled for interest and that principle also can be usefully applied to the facts of this case. 13. Therefore, this Court does not find any error in the order passed by the Tribunal. Accordingly, the above Civil Revision Petition fails and the same is dismissed. 13. Therefore, this Court does not find any error in the order passed by the Tribunal. Accordingly, the above Civil Revision Petition fails and the same is dismissed. However, since the learned counsel for the respondent is not objecting to the withdrawal of the amount deposited by the Insurance Company, the petitioner will be entitled to withdraw the entire amount deposited to the credit of MCOP No.285 of 2001 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal / Sub Court, Bhavani. No costs.