Full Judgment Text
NON-REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO.3867 OF 2017
[ARISING FROM SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) NO.4009 OF 2017]
ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LTD APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
BABY RADHIKA GUPTA AND ANR RESPONDENT(S)
J U D G M E N T
KURIAN, J.
Leave granted.
2. This is an appeal filed by the
appellant/insurance company aggrieved by the order
passed by the High Court declining to interfere with
the order passed in execution by the Motor Accident
JUDGMENT
Claims Tribunal.
3. The respondents filed an application for
compensation before the Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal, Delhi. The Tribunal awarded a total
compensation in the sum of Rs.44,50,000/- along with
interest @ 9% from the date of filing of the petition
till its realization. The appellant/insurance
company went in appeal before the High Court and the
1
Page 1
same was reduced to Rs.5,82,132/-.
4. During the pendency of the appeal before the High
Court, the respondents were permitted to withdraw 80%
of the amount deposited in Tribunal and the remaining
20%, with accrued interest, was withdrawn by the
appellant/insurance company. While disposing of the
Appeal No.239 of 2004, the High Court, in paragraph
25, held as under:-
“25. Vide interim order dated
13.7.2004, appellant insurance was
directed to deposit entire compensation
amount in the Tribunal. 80% of the
deposited amount was directed to be
released to the respondent/claimants.
It is hereby directed that balance 20%
of deposited amount together with
accrued interest thereon be returned to
the appellant insurance company. It is
further held that insurance company is
held entitled to recover the excess sum
JUDGMENT
from the respondents which has been
released in the favour of the
respondents.”
5. Thereafter, the respondents moved this Court in
Civil Appeal No.7736 of 2009, which was disposed of
by judgment dated 24.11.2009 enhancing the total
compensation to Rs.15,70,892/-. With the above
modification on the amount, the appeal was disposed
2
Page 2
of with a direction to the appellant/insurance
company to pay the balance amount to the respondents
within four weeks with interest @ 9% per annum.
6. Finding that the respondents have withdrawn much
more than what they would have been entitled to,
going by the order passed by this Court, the
appellant insurance company filed an appeal seeking
recovery of the interest portion on the principal
amount drawn in excess of what they have been
actually entitled to.
7. No doubt, the appellant has made out a case,
since there was liberty given to the
appellant/insurance company to recover the excess sum
payable to the respondents. However, having regard o
the peculiar facts of this case, we are of the view
that this is an eminently fit case to invoke our
jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of
JUDGMENT
India for the reason that the deceased employee died
at the age of 32 years and the claimants having not
been granted 50% of enhancement in the salary, no
amount was given to the minor towards loss of love,
care and protection and further that for consortium
only an amount of Rs.25,000/- was paid.
8. Hence, having regard to the peculiar facts of
this case, we dismiss this appeal, leaving the
question of law open.
3
Page 3
9. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand
disposed of.
10. There shall be no orders as to costs.
.......................J.
[KURIAN JOSEPH]
.......................J.
[R. BANUMATHI]
NEW DELHI;
MARCH 09, 2017.
JUDGMENT
4
Page 4