Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 236 (MP)

Kunti Bai v. M. P. S. R. T. C.

2011-02-18

ALOK ARADHE

body2011
JUDGMENT Alok Aradhe, J. 1. In this revision preferred under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the claimants/decree holders have assailed the legality and validity of the order dated 8-4-2008 passed by the 3rd Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Fast Track) (in short 'the Tribunal') by which it has been held that the amount deposited by the judgment debtor shall be first appropriated towards the principal amount and not towards the interest. 2. The facts giving rise to filing of the revision are that the applicants/claimants filed an application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 seeking compensation on account of death of the husband of the applicant No. 1 and father of the applicant Nos. 2 to 5. The Tribunal vide award dated 7-5-1999 awarded a sum of Rs. 6,35,555/- as compensation and directed that the amount of compensation shall carry interest at the rate of 12% per annum from 14-1-1997 and shall be deposited within one month. It was further directed that in case of failure to deposit the amount within one month, the amount of award shall carry interest at the rate of 18% per annum. 3. The applicants/claimants initiated proceedings for execution of the award. An application, namely, LA. No. 2 was filed by the judgment debtor in the execution proceeding stating that the amount of Rs. 2,70,000/- has been deposited by the judgment debtor however, the decree holders have erroneously still disclosed that a sum of Rs. 8,94,998/- is to be paid under the award. An objection was raised that the decree holders had computed the interest on the entire amount of award which is contrary to law and, therefore, the application for execution is not maintainable. Aforesaid application came up before the Tribunal for consideration on 28-6-2002. It was found by the Tribunal that admittedly the amount awarded by way of compensation has been deposited on different dates. The Tribunal held that the dispute between the parties is whether the amount which has been deposited by the judgment debtor on account of compensation shall be appropriated first towards the interest or towards the principal amount. The Tribunal rejected the contention of the judgment debtor that the amount deposited by them shall be first appropriated towards the principal amount as the amount of award has to be recovered as money decree. Accordingly, the I.A. No. 2 was rejected by the Tribunal. The Tribunal rejected the contention of the judgment debtor that the amount deposited by them shall be first appropriated towards the principal amount as the amount of award has to be recovered as money decree. Accordingly, the I.A. No. 2 was rejected by the Tribunal. Admittedly the aforesaid order has attained the finality. 4. Thereafter again while dealing with the question whether the entire amount awarded has been deposited or not the Tribunal vide order dated 8-4-2008 held that the question whether or not the amount deposited by the judgment debtor shall be first appropriated towards the interest has not been decided by order dated 28-6-2002. The Tribunal held that the provision of Sections 34 and 35 as well as Order 21 Rule 11 (2) of the Code of Civil Procedure do not apply to the execution proceeding under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. While referring to Section 3 of the Interest Act, 1978 and by placing reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in Smt. Chamelivati and Others Vs. Municipal Corporation, Delhi and Others AIR 1986 SC 1191 , the Tribunal held that the interest must be paid on enhanced amount of compensation from the date of application for compensation. Accordingly, it was held that the amount deposited by the judgment debtor shall be first appropriated towards the principal amount. 5. Learned Counsel for the applicants submitted that the issue whether or not the amount of compensation deposited by the judgment debtor shall be first appropriated towards interest or the principal has already been decided by the Tribunal vide order dated 28-6-2002, therefore, it was not open to the Tribunal to again reopen the issue as principle of res judicata applies in different stages of the same proceeding also. In support of his submissions learned Counsel for the applicant placed reliance on the decisions rendered in Satyadhyan Ghosal and Others Vs. Smt. Deorajin Debi and Another AIR 1960 SC 941 , Arjun Singh Vs. Mohindra Kumar and Others AIR 1964 SC 993 . It was further submitted by learned Counsel for the applicants that the Full Bench of this Court in Smt. Sarmaniya Bai and others Vs. Madhya Pradesh Rajya Parivahan Nigam and Others AIR 1990 MP 306 , has held that the award passed by the Tribunal can be executed under the provisions of Order 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It was further submitted by learned Counsel for the applicants that the Full Bench of this Court in Smt. Sarmaniya Bai and others Vs. Madhya Pradesh Rajya Parivahan Nigam and Others AIR 1990 MP 306 , has held that the award passed by the Tribunal can be executed under the provisions of Order 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It was further submitted that the amount deposited by the judgment debtor has to be first appropriated towards interest. In support of aforesaid proposition reliance has been placed in AIR 1970 SC 161 : (1988) 1 MPWN 64 : (1999) 1 MPWN 136 as well as Full Bench decision of this Court in Smt. Sarmaniya Bai (supra). On the other hand, learned Counsel for the non-applicants submitted that the order passed by the Tribunal is just and legal. The amount deposited by the judgment debtor has to be first appropriated towards the principal amount and the Tribunal has rightly placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in Smt. Chamelivati (supra). It is also submitted by learned Counsel for the non-applicants that the order passed by the Tribunal does not call for any interference. 6. I have considered the submissions made by learned Counsel for the parties. The following two issues arise for consideration in this revisions:-- (1) Whether the order dated 28-6-2002 has the effect of res judicata in subsequent stage of execution proceeding; and (2) Whether the amount deposited by the judgment debtor has to be appropriated first towards the interest or towards the principal amount in execution proceeding under the Motor Vehicles Act. 7. From perusal of the order dated 28-6-2002, it is apparent that the Tribunal has rejected the contention of the judgment debtor that the amount deposited by him should be first appropriated towards the principal. It is well settled in that an order is effective inter partes until it is successfully avoided or challenged in a higher forum. [See: State of Kerala Vs. M.K. Kunhikannan Nambiar Manjeri Manikoth, Naduvil (dead) and Others (1996) 1 SCC 435 ]. Admittedly, the aforesaid order has not been challenged in any higher forum therefore, the same is binding between the parties. Apart from this, if an order is passed by the Court in course of proceeding, the same is binding on the subsequent stage of the proceeding. M.K. Kunhikannan Nambiar Manjeri Manikoth, Naduvil (dead) and Others (1996) 1 SCC 435 ]. Admittedly, the aforesaid order has not been challenged in any higher forum therefore, the same is binding between the parties. Apart from this, if an order is passed by the Court in course of proceeding, the same is binding on the subsequent stage of the proceeding. It is well settled in law that the principle of res judicata applies to subsequent stage of proceeding even in respect of interlocutory orders. [See: Satyadhyan Ghosal (supra) and Arjun Singh (supra)]. 8. Thus, for the aforementioned reasons, the finding recorded by the Tribunal that the question whether the amount deposited by the judgment debtor has to be applied first towards interest or not, has not been decided by order dated 28-6-2002 is erroneous. The order dated 28-6-2002 has the effect of res judicata in the proceeding pending before the Claims Tribunal and is binding on the parties. Thus, the same issue could neither be permitted to be agitated by the judgment debtor nor the same could have been decided or dealt with by the Tribunal by the impugned order. Since, the order dated 28-6-2002 is binding between the parties, it is not necessary to decide the second issue. 9. For the aforementioned reasons, the order dated 8-4-2008 cannot be sustained in the eye of law. The same is hereby quashed. The Tribunal is directed to appropriate the amount deposited by the judgment debtor first towards the interest and then subsequently towards the principal amount. Accordingly, the revision succeeds and is hereby allowed.