Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
CA/318/2003 3/ 3 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
CIVIL
APPLICATION - FOR STAY No. 318 of 2003
In
FIRST
APPEAL No. 167 of
2003
=========================================================
UNITED
INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD - Petitioner(s)
Versus
KODARBHAI
KALABHAI DABHI & 2 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance :
MR
RAJNI H MEHTA for Petitioner(s) : 1,
MR NITIN
M AMIN for Respondent(s) : 1 -
3.
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE M.S.SHAH
and
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI
Date
: 28/12/2006
ORAL ORDER
(Per
: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.S.SHAH)
Mr.
Rajni H. Mehta, learned advocate for the applicant ? insurance
Company states that the award amount was deposited by the insurance
Company with the Tribunal on 06.05.2002 even before the appeal was
filed on 17.06.2002. It also appears that there was delay in filing
the appeal and after the delay was condoned, the appeal came to be
admitted on 12.07.2004. On that date, this Court also granted
ad-interim stay against execution of the award, upon deposit of the
award amount with the Tribunal. This Court also directed the
investment of the amount for a period of three years extendable, in
case, the appeal is not heard within that period.
2. Mr.
Nitin Amin, who had appeared at the stage of condonation of delay,
states that he has no instructions as to whether the amount
deposited by the insurance Company has been invested/ disbursed.
3. Because
there was no ad-interim stay between 06.05.2002, when the amount was
deposited before the Tribunal and 12.07.2004, When the Court first
granted ad-interim stay, presumably the Tribunal has already passed
orders for investment/ disbursement of the amount.
The
factum of deposit of the amount and also whether the Tribunal had
passed any orders for investment/ disbursement in the intervening
period of almost two years could have been brought to the notice of
the Court at the time of admission of the appeal.
4. Be
that as it may, it is directed that whatever amounts are invested in
the fixed deposits, the investment shall be renewed till final
disposal of the appeal, with usual conditions about prohibition
against premature encashment of/ encumbrance over the deposits, with
permission to the claimants to withdraw the interest periodically
accruing on such fixed deposits and with a direction to the Bank not
to permit the accounts of the claimants to be operated by any power
of attorney holder, who is not a close relative of the claimants.
5. This
Court cannot help noticing that in the operative
part of the judgment the Tribunal has observed that the order for
disbursement of the amount will be passed separately after the amount
is deposited by the appellant does not give any clue as to how much
amount was to be invested and how much was to be disbursed.
6. It
will be in the fitness of things if in the operative part of the
judgment i.e. in the award itself the Tribunal incorporates
appropriate directions for investment/ disbursement of the amount
being awarded, after referring to the principles laid down by the
Apex Court in Nagappa V/s. Gurudayal Singh (2003)2 SCC 274 and TN
State Road Transport Corporation Ltd. V/s. S. Rajapriya (2005)6 SCC
236. For this purpose, at the conclusion of the arguments the
Tribunal may also hear the claimants on this aspect.
The
Motor Accident Claims Tribunals shall accordingly invariably include
the direction regarding investment/ disbursement in the award itself.
6. A
copy of this order shall be circulated to all the Tribunals.
[M.S.SHAH,J.]
[AKIL
KURESHI,J.]
mrpandya*
Top