In High Court · 2025

(for short "J.Dr.") No.2 aggrieved by the order dated 06.12.2018 passed in E.P.No.3O of 2013 in O.P.No. 1948 ol 2000 by the leamed II Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad

2. The lacts o[the case in brief are that O.P.NO. 1948 of 2000 was liled by the respondent No. t - decree fiolder (lor short "D.FL.") claiming compensution for the injuries sustained by him in a car accident and the said O.P. *'as decreed awarding compensation of Rs.27,20,000/- with interest and costs of Rs.29, I 57l- by order and decree dated 21.03.2007. Aggrieved by the said order, both the claimant as well as thc Insurance Company preferred appeals vide M.A.C.M.A.Nos.2772 of 2007 and 198 ol 2008 respectively, which were dismissed by order datcd 01.02.2011 confirming the order passed by the Tribunal. At the stage of adrnission, the Division Bench of the High Court granted interim stay on condition ol- depositing hatf of the decretal amount together with interest and costs within a period of six (06) wecks frorn the date of the order in M.A.C.M.A.M.P.No.376 ol 2008 in M.A.C.M.A.No.198 of 2-008 dated 07.02.2008. The Insurance Company complied thc said order by r 2 Dr.GRR, J crp_1810_2019 depositing Rs.13,35,000/- (Rs.13,60,000/- (-) Rs.25,000/-) being hatf of the decretal amount plus Rs.7,82,4291- towards proportionate interest and Rs. 14,579l- towards proportionate costs, aggregating Rs.21.32,008/- in addition to the statutory deposit of Rs.25,000/- paid on 26.10.2.007 as a precondition lor filing the appeal.

2.1 . After the dismissal of the appeal M.A.C.M.A.No.l98 of 2008 dated

01.02.2011, the Insurance company deposited the remaining hall-of the decretal amount with proportionate interest and costs on 01.03.2012 Rs.25,28,716i- (comprising of Rs.13,60,000/- towards 50% of the decretal amount, Rs. I 1,54,137 towards proportionate interest and Rs' 14,579i- towat'ds proportionate costs)

2.2. Subsequently, the D.Hr. - claimant filed I.A.No.2l50 ol 2012 to amend the decree stating that he filed O.P.No.456 of 1995 betbre the Motor Accident claims Tribtural (for short "MACT"), Anantapur on 22.12.1995 ctaiming t compensation of Rs.6,00,000/- and tater filed transfer petition vlde Transfer c.M.P.No.50 of 2000 before the High court, which was allowed on 19.06.2000 and the o.P. was transferred to Il Additional chief Judge, city civil court, Hyderabad and re-numbered as o.P.No.1948 of 2000. In the order and decree passed by the Tribunat, the date of fiting o.P. was recorded as 25.10.2000 insread of 22. I 2.1995 by oversight, which also missed his attention either at the >- ) 3 Dr.GRR, J crp_lEI0_2019 time of filing appeal or at the time of disposal of appeal The said amendment petrtron was allowed on 29.02.2013. Thereafter, the claimant-Decree Holder filed E.P.No.30 of 2013 by filing calcularion memo claimin gRs.12,46,671/_ by the date ol filing E'p. In the carcuration memo, the claimant had shown the amounts deposited by the petitioner - Insurance company appropriated towards interest and costs initially and thereafter towards the principal and claimed Rs.12,46,67U-.

2.3. The Insurance Company fited is counter and opposed the said calculation stating that the amounts deposited by the lnsurance Company towards the decretal amount with interest and costs as per the order of the High court were already withdrawn by the craimant, as such it would amount to satisfaction of the decree- After amendment of the decree, the claimant would be entitled for the difference of inreresr fiom the original date of firing, to the date of filing recorded in the original decree i.e. from 2g.l2.lgg5 to 25.10.2000 only. After! amendment of decree, the Insurance Company deposited the difference of interest on 06.12.2013 after deducting Income Tax at source and paid Rs'9,52,368/- towards difference in interest for the period from29.r2.1995 to 25 10'2000. After the decree was amended from 25.10.2000 to 22.r2.rgg5, taking undue advantage of the same, even after satisfying the decree on prior occasion and withdrawing the entire decretal amount, the D.Hr. re_calculated 4 \l - .,1 Dr.GRR, J crp l8l0_2019 the amounts by appropriating the amount already deposited towards interest and arrived at the figure, as such opposed the same.

3. T'he leamed II Additional Chief Judge, Ciry Civil Courr, Hyderabad on hearing both the leamed counsel representing the parrics, ordered the E.p as follows: l) Firstly, the D.lIr. has to calculate half of the award amount together with interest thereon and half of the costs awarded by the Court. 2) out of the deposited amounts, the D.FIr. has to appropriate the amount first towards interest, then towards i6sts and subsequently towards principal amount. 3) If by applying the abovd formula, if any amount becomes duc under half of the decretal amount, it has to be added to the principal amount due as on 20.02.2008 and tl"re same formula has to be applied till realization ol the entire amount. 4) The D.Hr. is not entitled for refund of the TDS deducted bi, J.I)r.No.2, as he did not fumish Income Tax particulars and pAN particulars to the.l.Dr.No.2.

4. Aggrieved by the said order passed by the tearned II Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, the Insurance Company preferred this revrston petltlon.

5. Heard Smt.A.Anasuya, leamed counsel for the revision petitioner _ Insurance company and Sri Koti Venkataramana, learned counsel for the respondent No.l - D.Hr. 4 5 Dr.GRR, J crp_IE l0_20I9 6 The respondent No.2 - J.Dr.No. I was shown as not necessa ry party 7. Leamed counsel for the revision petitioner _ Insurance Company submitted that by the date of firing the petirion by the D.Hr. for amendmenr of the decree to amend the date of fiting of o.p. at Anantapur under section I52 of cPC' the decree was arready satisfied. The portion of interest payable ror the difference of period from the amended date ti, the o.p. was transfered to Hyderabad, was worked out by the petitioner _ lnsurance Company at Rs'9'52,368A and accordingly, the petitioner - Insurance company deposited a cheque bearing No.966047 aut"a oe.n.zol3 drawn on punjab Nationar Bank, Somajiguda, Hyderabad in fulr satisfaction by paying the difference of interesr amount of Rs.7,61,894/_ after deducting TDS of Rs. 1,90,474l_ ar source. As the decree was already satisfied and O.p. was amended after satis$,ing the decree, only interest for the difference ofperiod was payable, but appropriation towards interest courd not be permitted. The court below erred in allowing the E.p. by ordering toqappropriate the amount deposited towards interest first, then towards costs and subsequently towards principal amount. The court berow failed to see that the respondent - D.Ift' received the entire compensation awarded with interest and costs during March, 2012 itserf when the petitioner - Insurance company deposited barance 50%o of the decretar amount with proportionate interest and harf of costs awarded, which was withdrawn by the respondent - D.Hr., and the same would amount to satisfying the decree. The court below 6 Dr.GRR, J crp_1810_2019 ought to have dismissed the E.P. holding that the D.Hr. was not entitled to re- calculate the interest after the decree was satisfied and relied upon the judgrncnts of the ljon'bte Apex court in Kerala State Electricity Board and Another v. Kurien E.Kalathil and Anotherrand of the judgment ol the High court ol Delhi in M/s.Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited v. vinod Kumar ': tyagr.

8. Learned counsel for the respondent No. I - D.Hr. contended that there was no itlegatity in the order passed by the learned II Additional chief Judge, city civil court, Hyderabad. The siiid order was passed basing upon the judgrnent of the Flon'ble Apcx court'in v.Kala Bharathi and others v. M/s.oriental Insurance company Limitedr, wherein it was held that the D.Hr. is entitled to apply the rule of appropriation by appropriating the arnount first towards interest. then towards costs and subsequently towards principal amount due under the decree. As such, no interference was required in the said order passed by thqcourt below and prayed to dismiss the revision.

9. As seen from the facts of the case, the respondent - D.Hr. met with an accident in the year 1995 and filed o.p.No.456 of 1995 before the MACT, Anantapur and later the said o.p. was transferred to II Additional chiet Judge, city civil court, Hyderabad as per the orders in Transfer c-.M.p.No.50 of 2000 'LAWS(SC)-2018-3-6(,, 'LAws(DLH)-2022-s- tl '20I4 LawSuit (SC) 229 7 7 Dr.GRR, J crp_1810 2019 dated 19.06.2000 and re-numbered as O'P'No'1948 of 2000' After transfer of O.P. from Anantapur to Hyderabad, the respondent - claimant filed l'A'No'691 of2002forenhancementofcompensationfromRs'6'00'000ltoRs'78'92'000/- aird th" same was allowed by order dated 13.06.2002. An award was passed in O.P.No. 1948 of 2000 on 21.03'2007 awarding compensation of Rs'27'20'000/- with future interest @7.5 % per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization with proportionate costs of Rs'Zg'tSZ/-' Aggrieved by the said order' the claimant preferred appeal vide M'AC'M'A'No'2772 of 2007 and the Insurance Company preferred appeal v'ide M'A'C'M'A'No'198 of 2008' At the stage of admission, an interim stay was granted by the Division Bench oi this Court on condition of depositing half of the decretal amount together with interestandcostswithinaperiodofsix(06)weeksaspertheordersin M.A.C.M.A.M.P'No.376 of 2008 in MA'C'M'A'No'198 of 2008 dated 07.02.2008. The petitioner - Insurance Company complied the said order by towards half of the decretal amount after deducting depositing $s.13'35'000/- an amount of Rs.25,000/-, which was deposited as statutory deposit paid on 26.10.2001 as a precondition for filing the appeal plus Pis'7'82'4291- towards proportionate interest and Rs.14,579l- towards proportionate costs, aggregating Rs.21,32,008/-. This Court dismissed both the appeals by order dated 0l .02.201 i confirming the orders of the Tribunal' dI Y-1 \ - \ 8 Dr.GRR, J crp_1810_2019

10. After dismissal of the appeal, the petitioner _ Insurance Company deposited the balance halfofthe decretal amount with proportionate interest and costs on 0l .03.2012 depositing Rs.25,2g,7161_ (comprising Rs. 13,60,000i_ towards 50yo of decretar amount, Rs1r,54,137l- towards proportionate interest and Rs' r4'579r- towards propo.tionate costs). The detairs of the payments made by the petitioner - Insurance Company are as under:

26.10 2007 - Rs.25.000/_ 20.02.2008 - Rs.13,35,000/- +ps.1,g2,429l_ + Rs.l+,5 79t_: Rs.20,51,417/_ 0 1.03. 20 I 2 - Rs. I 3,60,000/- + q5. 1 t,54,1 37 / _ +Rs.t 4,579 I _: Rs.22,97,888/- Rs.25,000/- Rs.27,20,000/- + Rs.i9,36,566/- + p5.29,158/_ = Rs.43,74,305/_

11. Subsequently, the respondent _ D.Hr. - claimant noticing that the date of filing of o'p' was recorded as 25. l 0.2000 instead of 22.r2.1gg5in the order and decree passed by the Tribunal by oversight filed I.A.No.2 150 of 20l2to amend the decree' The said petition was arowed on 2g.02.2013. Thereafter, the respondent - D'Hr' filed E'p'No.3, 0f 2013 and filed the carcuration memo appropriating the amounts deposited by the petitiner _ Insurance Company towards interest and costs thereafter towards the principal and claimed Rs'12'46'67r/- by rhe date of filing of Ep. In supporr of his contention, the respondent - D.Hr. relied upon the judgment of the Hon,ble Apex Court in 9 Dr.GRR, J crp_1810 2019 V.Kala Bharathi and Others v. M/s.Oriental Insurance Company Limited (cited supra)

12. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the above case while answering the question whether the amount deposited by the J.Dr. in a decree is to be adjusled hrst towards interest or towards principal decretal amount, held as follows: "26. [n view of above and nlore particularly keeping in view the ratio of the Constitution Bench judgmcnt in Gurpreet Singh v. Union of India [(2006) 8 SCC 457], where considering an identical queslion in respect of Order XXI Rute I of the CPC, it was trdtla that if the amount deposited by the judgment debtor falls short of the decretal amount, the decree- holder is entitled to apply the rule of appropriation by appropriating the amount first towards interest, thcn towards costs and subsequently towards principal amounl due under the decree, we are of the opinion that the appellants herein are entitled to the amount awarded by the Executing Court, as thc amounts deposited by the judgmcnt debtor fell short of thc decretal amount. After such appropriation, the decree-holder is entitled to interest only to the extent of unpaid principal amount I{ence, interest be calculated on the unpaid principal amount."

13. Relying upon the said judgment and the mode of appropriation as stated by the Hon'ble Apex Court, the trial court passed the impugned order. The Hon'bte Apex Court considered the scope of Order XXI Rule I of CPC, which prescribes the mode ofpaying money under decree and held that Dr.GRR, J ' crp l8l0 2019 \="1 \i - \ 10 " 14. A bare pcrusal of the aforesaid provisions makes it amply clear that rhe scope of order XXI Rule l of the cpC is that the judgment dehtor is requircd to pay the decretal amount in olle of rhc modes specified in sub- rulc (l) thereof. Sub-rule (2) ol Rulc I provides that once pavrnent is made under sub_rule (l), it is the duty of the judgment debtor to give notice to the decrce-holdcr through thc Court or directly to him bl,registercd post acknorvlcdgement due. Sub_rule.(3) of Rule I nterely indicates that in case money is paid by postal money order or tkough a bank under clauge (a) or clause (b) of sub_rule (l) thercol. ccrtain paniculars arc required [o be accurately incorporatcd uhile making such payment. Sub-rules (4) and (5) of Rulc I statcs from which date, interest shall cease to run in case arrounr is paid uidcr clausc (a) or (c) of sub_rulc (l), intercst shall ccasc, to run lrom the date of service ol notice as indicated under sub_rule (2); w,hilc in case ol out of coun paymenr to rhc dccree_ holdcr by way of any of the modes mentioncd undcr clause (b) ol sub_rule (l), interest shall cease to run lrom thc date ofsuch payment.

15. Thc language contained in the aforesajd sub_rules clearly indicates thc appropriation of amount to be made in case the decrec contains a specific clause. specifying the manner in which the money dcposited to be appropriated. Sub_rule (l)(c) of Rule I indicates the money deposited to be appropriated as per thc direction of the Court, if there is a provision in that behalf. In the abscnce of specific direction with regard to appropriation, then only rhe manner of appropriation would arise for consideration. Sub_rules (2) to (5) of Rule I indioate the procedure to bc lbllou,ed u,hen the deposit is made either under clause (a) or (b) of sub_rule (l) thereof, but it does not leave any scope for interpretation with regard to appropriation ofdeposited amount by the dccree;bolder. 11 .*-il,31;;

16. In this regard, it is also pertinent to extract Rule 472 of the Andhra Pradesh Motor Vehicles Rules, I 9g9 (for shon, ,the A.P.M.v. Rutes,), which is as under: "472. Enforcement of an award of the Claims Tribunal:- Subject to the provisions of Section 174, the Clainrs Tribunal shall, for the purpose of enlorccmcnr of its award, have all the powers of a Civil Court in the execution of a decree under the Code of Civfl procedure, 190g, as if thc award were a decree for the payment of money passed by such Court in a Civil Suit.,, 'fhe above-said Rule indicates that the award passcd by rhc Claims Tribunal is to be treated as if the decree for the payment of money passed by the Civil Court in a civil suit. Hence, in view of' the specific provision contained in the A.P.M.V. Rules, the award passed by the Claims Tribunal is to be treated as a money decree. In Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Jaipur v. poonam pahwa [1997 AIR (SC) 29511, rhis Court held thar in executing rhe award ol the Claims Tribunal, Executing Court is competent to invoke the beneficial provision under Order XXI Rule I of C.p.C.,, 14' The Hon'bre Apex court also considered the judgments of the privy Council in Venkatadri Appa Rao v. parthasarathi Appa Rao [1922AIR (pC) 2331, Rai Bahadur Serhnemichand v. Seth Radha Kishe n [1922AIR (pC) 26] and its earlier judgment Bayabai t1969 (2) SCC 274), Rajasthan State Roatl Transport Corporation, Jaipur v. poonam Pahwa ln Meghraj v Dr.GItR, J crp_t810_20t9 [AIR r997 (sc) 295 I] and Industriar Credit and Deveropment syndicate (ICDS) Limited v. Smithaben H.pater and others i1999 (3) scc g0l and of the constitutional Bench judgment of the Apex court in Gurpreet singh v. Union of India [2006 (g) SCC 457], wherein the principles regarding rulc of appropriation towards decretal anlount is stated as follows: a) Thc general r.ule ol appropriation towards a decrotal amounr was that such an amounl was to be adjusted strictly in accordance with the directions contained in the dccree and in the abscnce of such directir)ns. adjustment be rnade firstiy towards payment ol'inlerest and costs and thercalicr towards payment of the principle amount subject, of coursc, to any agreenrcnt betu,cen the |rart ics. b) The legislative. inrenr in cnacring sub rules (4) and (5) is clear to the points that intcrest should cease to run on the deposit made by thejudgment debtor and notice giverr or on thc amounr being tendered outside the Court in thc manner provided in Order 2l Rule I sub clause (t)). c) If thc paymenr made by rhe iudgmenr debtors falls short ol_ the decretal amount, the decree holder will be entitlcd to apply the general rule ol appropriation by appropriating tho amounr depositcd towards the interest. then towards costs and finally towards the principal amount duc under the decree. d) Thercafter, no further intcrest would run on tlle sum appropriated towards the principal. In other words, il_ a part of the principal amount has been paid along with interest due thereon as on the date of issuance of notice of dcposit of interest on the part of the principal sum will ceasc to run thereafter. 13 Dr.GRR, J crp_1810_2019 e) [n case where there is a shortlall in deposit of the principal amount, the decrce holder would be entitled to adjust interest and costs first and then balance towards the principal and bcyond that the decree holder cannot seek to reopen the entire transaction and proceed to recalculate the interest on the whole of the principal amount and scek for re-appropriation.,,

15. Thus, as seen from the above principles stated by the Hon'ble Apex court, only in case where there is a shortfall in deposit of the principal amount, the D.FIr. would be entitled to adjust the amount first towards interest and costs and then the balance amount towards the principal and the D.FIr. cannot seek to re- open the entire transaction and pro'ceed to re-calculate the interest on the whole of principat amount and seek for re-appropriation. As per the facts of the present case, the petitioner - Insurance company deposited half of the decretal amount with interst and costs as per the orders of this Court in M.A.C.M.A.M.P.No.376 of 2008 in M.A.C.M.A.No.l98 of 2008 on20.02.2008 and after dismissal of the appeal deposited the balance decretal amount with proportionate interest and costs on 01.03.2012 and the respondent - D.Hr. received the entire compensation awarded with interest and costs by March, 2012 itself. Subsequently, after the amendment petition filed by the respondent - D.FIr. to amend the decree, as the date of filing the petition was wrongly recorded in the decree as 25.10.2000 instead of 22.12.1995 was allowed, the petitioner - Insurance company deposited the difference of interest after deducting Income Tax at source and paid Rs.9,52,36gl- as shown below: \ \ 74 \ Dr.GRR, J crp_1810_2019

06.12.2013 :- Rs.7,61,894/- + Rs.1,90,474l- (tncome Tax) : Rs.9,52,368/- (Difference of interest after arnendment of decree lrom 29. 12.1995 to 25. I 0.2000)

16. The court below held that the D.Hr. was not entitled lor refund of the TDS deducted by the J.Dr.No.2, as the D.Hr. did nor lurnish the Income Tax parliculars and PAN particulars to the J.Di.No.2. The order of the court below on that aspect became finat. As such, we are now concemed only with regard to the appropriation of the amount as pcr the calculation made by the D.FIr. first towards the interest thereon thereaftel towards costs and subsequently towards thc principal amount is p.ope, o, not?

17. The Hon'ble Apex courr in Kerala state Electricity Board (for short "KSEB") and Another v. Kurien E.Karathil and Another (cited supra), wherein also there was a dispute between the appellant - Kerala State Electricity Board and the respondent - contractor with regard to the appropriation of amounts deposited by the KSEB, the non'ble Apex court held that the manner of appropriation by the respondent - contractor as shown in the calculation memo filed by him by showing adjustment of payments firstry towards interest and then towards principal was in clear violation of the directions given by the court to make payment under Ex.p20. rn the original Ex.p20, when respondent -contractor himself has expressly adjusted ail payments made by the appeilant towards principal and not towards interest, the respondent - contractor cannot Z- 15 Dr.GRR, J crp_1810_2019 tum round and change the method of calculation by showing the adjustment of payments made first against the interest and then towards the principat. Thrs important aspect of change in the method of adjustment/appropriation was held to be lost sight by the l{igh Court and the direction of the High Court to make further payment of Rs.4, 12,58 ,2241- under Ex.P20 is held unsustainable.

18. The Hon'ble Apex Court on considering the Constitution Bench Judgment in Gurpreeth Singh v. Union of India [2006 (8) SCC 457] followed in BHEL's case held that: "18. As held in Constitution Bench judgment in Gurpreet Singh's case followed in BHEL's case. ifthere is a direction in the decree as to the mode of appropriation of payment, then appropriation of any payment made by the judgment-debtor has to be strictly in accordance with the direction contained in the decree. If thcre is no such dircction in the decree, then the general principle is that where a judgment-dcbtor makcs payment without making any indication as to ho$, thc pa)'mcnt is to be adjusted, it is the option of the creditor to make adjustmcnt firstll' towards the interest and then towards the principal. But if the judgment- debtor has indicated the manner in which the aptropriation is to be made, then the creditor has no choice to apply the payment in a dilferent manner. The general principle ofmode ofappropriation firstly in payment of interest and therealter in payment of principal amount is subject to the exception i.e. thc partics may agrec to the adjustment of the payment in any other manner despite thc decree.

19. In C.A.No.4092 of 2000, this Court directed payment as per Ex.P20. As held in Gurpreet Singh's case, the payment is to be appropriated strictly in accordance with the directions contained in the decree. In C.A.No.4092 of 2000, since this Court directed the paymcnt as per Ex.P20 and therefore, the appropriation/adj ustment of payment has to be made strictly as stated in 16 Dr.GRR, J crp 18l0 2019 Ex.P20. When the direction of the court is to make paymenl as per Ex.p20. the respondent-contractor cannot turn round and say that the amount rcceived by him will be ad.justed towards the interest first and then towards the principal.,. 19. [n the present case, the respondent - D.FIr. received the entire compensation awarded with interest and costs during March, 20 r 2 itself. onry the interest paft on the decretal amount for the period tiorn 29.12.1995 to

25.10.2000 was not paid due to ove'sight. After an amendmenr peririon fired by the respondent - claimant r.vas allowed, the said interest amount was deposited by thc petitioner - Insurance company. 'r'he D.r,r. is ,ot entitled to re-calculate the interest afte. the decree was'satisfied. As such, the couft bclow erred in passing the order directing 'the petitioner _ Insurance Companl, to pay the amounts once again re-calcurating the interest by appropriating the amounts deposited towards interest first. The impugned order passcd by the court berow is against the principle of settled law that once the total arvard amount has been deposited by the J.Dr., the D.FIr. cannot take benefit of the arnount paid towards interestrfor the period from 2g.r2.rgg5 to 25.10.2000 by re-opening the decree once again. once the award amount was deposited in the court. the interest would cease to run on the said award amount. As such, the petitioner _ J.Dr.No.2 is not entitred to deposit any further amount and the lower court ought to have dismissed the Ep. As the said order passed by the lower court is erroneous, the same is liable to be set aside. 7', 71 Dr,GRR, J crp_1810_2019

20. In the result, the civil Revision Petition is allowed setting aside the order dated 06.12.2018 passed in E.P.No.30 of 2013 in O.P.No. 1948 of 2000 by rhe leamed II Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. No order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending in this petition, if any, shall stand closed. SD/. V.KAVITHA EPUW REGISTRAR ..,4 To, //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER r.l

1. The ll Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court at Hyderabad 2. One CC to SRl. A ANASUYA, Advocate [OPUC] 3 One CC to SRl. KOTI VENKATARAIUANA, Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CD CoPies 5. One Spare CoPY PB/RSL { ( rA a() t,q 16 JUt.2U6 -z * Or:.3PPT'lt '\-' * HIGH COURT DATED: 09/06/2025 ORDER CRP.No.1810 of 2019 I ALLOWING OF THE CRP WITHOUT COSTS 6 ?d \o