IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 8444 of 2008(E)
1. J.V. SURENDRAN, S/O. VASU,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT
... Respondent
2. DISTRICT COLLECTOR,
For Petitioner :SRI.R.RAJAGOPAL
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :01/09/2008
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
===============
W.P.(C) NO. 8444 OF 2008 E
====================
Dated this the 1st day of September, 2008
J U D G M E N T
In this writ petition, the prayer sought for by the petitioner is to
direct the 2nd respondent to initiate recovery proceedings for realising the
amounts that are due to the petitioner as indicated in Ext.P7 statement.
2. Facts of the case are that the petitioner was one of the
claimants in OP(MV) No.551/82 filed before the MACT, Ernakulam. Award
was passed by the Tribunal granting compensation of Rs.20,360/- plus
interest at 12% and costs. In order to get the amount recovered, EP
No.181/04 was filed. Objections were not filed and revenue recovery
steps were ordered. Accordingly certificate of recovery was also issued,
which is Ext.P2. Still, payment was not forthcoming and therefore the
petitioner filed a writ petition before this court resulting in Ext.P3 judgment
in WP(C) No.13844/06 where the submission that the amount will be paid
within two months was recorded and the case was disposed of.
3. Still later, KSRTC sought review of the judgment by filing RP
No.719/06 and that was disposed of by Ext.P4, leaving it open to them to
seek quantification of the amount by making appropriate application
WPC 8444/08
:2 :
before the Tribunal itself. Accordingly IAs were filed before the Tribunal
and that resulted in Ext.P5. A reading of Ext.P5 shows that the dispute
was centered around the interest that was claimed. Any how, applications
were dismissed with costs. Thereafter, yet another application was filed
by the petitioner in the EP that was already closed and Ext.P6 order was
passed by the Tribunal directing to expedite recovery proceedings.
4. In the meantime, though some payments were made by the
KSTRC, as according to the petitioner, that did not satisfy the award and
as further recovery proceedings were not progressing, this writ petition
has been filed. As per Ext.P7 statement filed by the petitioner, still an
amount of Rs.36,110.70/- remains outstanding as on 11/3/2008. It is to
get this amount recovered, the writ petition is filed.
5. KSRTC on the other hand in its statement disputes the liability
on the ground that what is claimed by the petitioner is interest on interest.
6. Referring to Ext.P7, learned counsel for the petitioner rightly
points out that the demand they made therein is not interest on interest
but interest is claimed only on principal. He is also referring to the
judgment of this court in Sobha Mohan Kumar v. National Insurance
Co.Ltd(2002(3) KLT 293) where it has been held that compensation
WPC 8444/08
:3 :
amount deposited has to be appropriated in accordance with the
procedure contemplated under Order XXI, Rule 1(1) of the C.P.C.
7. Having considered the submissions made by both sides, I am
inclined to agree with the counsel for the petitioner. A perusal of Ext.P7
shows that on appropriation of the amount deposited by the Corporation
before the Tribunal on 18/7/1987, irrespective of the mode of
appropriation, balance due to the petitioner was Rs.12,229.40/- and
interest is calculated on such due. An analysis of Ext.P7 shows that the
calculation made by the petitioner is not interest on interest and therefore
his claim is a legitimate one. He is also supported by the judgment
referred to above. If that be so, the appropriation made by the petitioner
as on 18/7/87 much more thereafter cannot be faulted.
Writ petition is disposed of directing that the amount due to the
petitioner shall be recovered and paid, as expeditiously as possible, at any
rate within 4 months of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE
Rp