Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1193 (JHR)

Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Satendra Kumar

2012-08-08

N.N.TIWARI

body2012
ORDER The petitioner has prayed for setting aside the order dated 26.7.2008 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ranchi in Misc. Case No.49 of 2003. It is an execution proceeding arising out of Compensation Case No.93 of 1989. By the said order the objection of the petitioner against maintainability of the execution case has been rejected. 2. According to the petitioner, the award given by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, in respect of the interest, was modified in Misc. Appeal No.576/1993. The claimant initiated the said execution proceeding for realising the amount of interest. The petitioner had filed objection against the maintainability of the said case, but without taking into consideration the order of appellate court passed in Misc. Appeal No.576/1993 learned Claims Tribunal has rejected the petitioner's application holding that the Insurance Company is liable to pay interest as awarded by the Claims Tribunal. 3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that since the award with respect to the rate of interest was modified in Misc. Appeal, the execution proceeding in respect thereto is not maintainable. The award of Claims Tribunal merged in the order of the appellate court and the award of Claims Tribunal is not executable. Learned counsel referred to and relied on a decision of Supreme Court in Om Prakash Verma & Ors. Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. [reported in (2010) 13 SCC, 158]. 4. The writ petition has been opposed by the sole claimant-respondent. It has been, inter alia, stated that learned Tribunal has made the award under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act directing the Insurance Company to pay a sum of Rs. Two Lacs as compensation along with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of application till its realization within a period of two months, failing which to pay interest @ 18% per annum. 5. Against the said award the petitioner had preferred appeal in this Court being Misc. Appeal No. 576/1993. The said appeal was partly allowed and the amount of compensation was reduced. So far as the interest part in respect of the liability of the insurance company is concerned, that was not interfered with. 6. Against the said order in appeal the claimant had preferred L.P.A. No.100/1998. Appeal No. 576/1993. The said appeal was partly allowed and the amount of compensation was reduced. So far as the interest part in respect of the liability of the insurance company is concerned, that was not interfered with. 6. Against the said order in appeal the claimant had preferred L.P.A. No.100/1998. The said appeal was allowed holding the award rendered by the Claims Tribunal as just and proper and further holding that the entire amount is payable by the Insurance Company. 7. Against the said award the Insurance Company had preferred Special Leave Petition (SLP) in the Supreme Court. The SLP was dismissed. 8. Learned counsel for the claimant-respondent submitted that the original award of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, thus, remains as it is. But in spite of the clear direction in the award, the Insurance Company did not pay interest to the claimant. The Insurance Company contested the execution proceeding on frivolous pleas, which have been rejected by the impugned order after considering all the relevant facts and materials on record. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the facts and material on record as well as the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. I also perused the impugned order dated 26.7.2008. 10. It is not disputed that the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal has awarded compensation with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of application i.e. from 18.8.1989 till its realization within a period of two months, failing which the Insurance Company was directed to pay interest @ 18% per annum. 11. Against the said order the Insurance Company preferred Misc. Appeal No.576/1993. The said appeal was partly allowed and the amount of compensation was reduced, but award regarding payment of interest was not disturbed. 12. The claimant then preferred appeal against the said award being L.P.A. No. 100/1998. The said appeal was allowed holding that the award rendered by the Claims Tribunal is just and proper. 13. The Insurance Company assailed the said judgment of the appellate court before the Apex Court in Special Leave Petition (Civil) CC 9650/2002. The said SLP was dismissed by order dated 7.1.2003. 14. Obviously, the award of learned Tribunal remained intact by which the interest was also awarded. 15. Admittedly, the Insurance Company has not paid the interest as awarded by the Claims Tribunal. The said SLP was dismissed by order dated 7.1.2003. 14. Obviously, the award of learned Tribunal remained intact by which the interest was also awarded. 15. Admittedly, the Insurance Company has not paid the interest as awarded by the Claims Tribunal. The claimant, therefore, had to initiate proceeding for realization of the said amount. 16. There is, thus, no illegality in the said proceeding. The objection raised by the Insurance Company is wholly frivolous and baseless. In stead of paying the amount of interest awarded to the claimants, the petitioner unnecessarily dragged the claimants in different proceedings and put him to loss and harassment. They have also filed this writ petition without any legal ground and on frivolous basis only in order to delay/deprive the claimant/respondent of the benefit of the award for a long time. 17. The order passed in Misc. Appeal was interfered with by the appellate court in L.P.A. No.100/1998 and SLP filed against the said order was also dismissed by the Apex Court. There is no other order/award regarding the rate of interest except the award of learned Claims Tribunal and, as such, there was no question of merging of the said award in any order. The decision of the Supreme Court in Om Prakash Verma and Ors. (supra) has no relevance in the context of the instant case. 18. For the reasons aforesaid, I find no merit in this case. This writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed with cost of Rs.10,000/- 19. The interim order dated 8.1.2010 is vacated. 20. The amount of cost shall be paid by the petitioner to the claimant-respondent within one month.