LexRAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION JAIPUR versus SMT. POONAM PAHWA AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT ~,,- CORPORATION JAIPUR v. SMT. POONAM PAHWA AND ORS. B JULY 9, 1997 (G.N. RAY AND G.T. NANAVATI, JJ.j Code uf Civil Procedure, 1908 : Order XX! Rule 1 (2)-Acci- dent-Claims petition---Award--Appellant-Corporation deposited the decre- c ta/ amount in the Court-No notice of deposit to the decree holders-Interest from the date of deposit till the date of inf onnation of deposit claimed-Al- lowed by Tribunal-Review petition dismissed-On appeal, Held, it was obligatory on the judgment-debtor to give notice to the decree holders about the deposit of decretal amount-Liable to pay interest_:_No interference with D the judgment of the Tribunal-Motor Vehicles Act, 1939--Section 110( c )-Punjab Motor Vehicle Claims Tribunal Rules, 1964. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908--0rder XX! Rule 1(2)-Applicability of in respect of Sec. llO(c) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. E Punjab Motor Vehicles Claims Tribunal Rules, 1964--Rule 20--Amendment inserting Order XX! C.P.C.-Adoption of the Punjab Rules by the State of Haryana-Therefore the Rules applicable in State of Haryana along with the said amendment to Punjab Rules as, on the date of adoption the Punjab Rules stood amended. F A bus of the appellant-Corporation met with an accident and one 'S' travelling in th~ bus died. Claim petition was filed by dependents of the deceased (respondents 1 to 3). In pursuance to an award by the Tribunal, the appellant-Corporation deposited the decretal amount in the Executing Court. But the decree holders were not informed about the deposit either G by the Court or by the appellant. Therefore, a claim for further interest from the date of deposit till the decree holders got information about the deposit was made. The Tribunal allowed the said claim. The Revision Petition of the appellant Corporation was dismissed by the High Court. ~ Hence the present appeal. H The contentipn for the appellant-Corporation was that order XXI 698 -- RAJASTHAN S.R.T.C. JAIPUR v. POON AMP AHWA 699 Rule 1(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure was not applicable in respect of A claims made under sec. UO(C) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. It was also contended that amendment of Rule 20 of the Punjab Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Rules, 1969 had not been incorporated in the Rules applicable to the State of Haryana, and hence the provisions of Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure was not applicable. It was also contended B that judgment debtor had deposited the decretal amount and for failure of the Court, no liability could be fastened on the judgment debtor. The contention on behalf of the respondents 1 to 3 was that as Haryana had adopted the Punjab Rules in 1972, by implication it will mean that Punjab Rules as stood amended on the date of adoption of Punjab Rules in Haryana in 1972, were applicable in the State of Haryana. It was further contended that the liability under Order XXI Rule 1 Code of Civil Procedure could not be evaded by the judgment debtor. Dismissing the appeal, this Court HELD : 1.1. The appellant cannot escape its liability to pay interest to the decree holders for the period between the date of deposit of the decretal amount and the date of notice of such deposit of the decree ,holders. [712-G] c D E 1.2. Order XXI Rule 1 of Civil Procedure Code as amended in 1976 expressly provides that the judgment debtor shall give notice of the deposit oFlhe decretal amount to the decree holder either through the court or directly to the decree holder. The obligation of giving notice to the decree holder is not absolved by simply depositing the amount without taking F steps to ensure service of the notice of such deposit to the decree holder through Court or otherwise. [712-F] 1.3. After the amendment of Order XXI Rule 1 in 1976, there is no scope for any controversy as to the liability of the judgment debtor when G the decretal amount is deposited in Court but the notice of such deposit is not given to the decree holder. It is imperative that the judgment debtor has to give notice to the decree holder about deposit for the decretal amount. Since motor accident had taken place in 1983, Order XXI Rule 1 as amended in 1976 is clearly applicable. Even otherwise also, the provision of Order XXI Rule 1 being a procedural law, amended provisions H 700 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1997] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. A of Order XXI Rule 1 are applicable even if the accident had taken place
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.