Judgment:
R.D. Shukla, J.
1. The revision is directed against the order dated 1.9.1990 of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (XI/III Addl. District Judge), Indore, passed in Execution Case No. 107/77/88 whereby the non-applicants have been directed to deposit a sum of Rs. 1,047/- for the complete discharge of compensation awarded to the claimant. The controversy in the case is that in case of deposit by the respondents the amount is to be adjusted towards the interest and costs first or amount deposited should be adjusted towards principal sum.
2. In the impugned order the learned Tribunal has directed that the money deposited by the Insurance Company shall be adjusted towards the principal amount and as such, only rupees referred above have been found due against the Insurance Company.
3. The contention of the learned Counsel for the claimant-applicant is that the amount deposited by the Insurance Company should first be adjusted against the interest and costs and only rest of the amount be adjusted towards the principal amount.
4. As against it, learned Counsel for the non-applicant has submitted that the learned Tribunal has committed no illegality in directing adjustment towards the principal amount.
5. The history of the case is that an award of Rs. 15,000/- was made in favour of the applicant and the same was raised to Rs. 33,000/- with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum by the High Court. The Insurance Company deposited Rs. 15,681/- on 11.2.1981 and thereafter it deposited Rs. 48,182/- on 19.1.1989. Thus, Rs. 63,863/- in all.
6. Learned Tribunal has adjusted whole of the amount of Rs. 15,000/- towards the principal amount and, thereafter, has calculated the interest on remaining sum of Rs. 18,000/- after 11.2.1981. In the opinion of this Court this is not the correct procedure. Unless the party has made special request that the amount deposited by it is to be adjusted towards the principal amount, the interest and costs are required to be adjusted first and, therefore, in this case also the amount deposited earlier should have been adjusted towards the interest and costs and, thereafter, the Insurance Company should have been directed to deposit rest of the amount including the amount remaining from the principal sum and the interest, if any.
7. During the course of agreement learned Counsel for the non-applicant has submitted f that normally no revision lies against the order of the Claims Tribunal. I do not agree with this view as, in the opinion of this Court, the Claims Tribunal constituted under the Motor Vehicles Act has been held to be civil Court and, therefore, the revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure would lie against the order passed by the Tribunal in the course of proceeding before it. Reference may be had to a Full Bench decision of this Court in Krishan Gopal v. Dattatrya 1971 ACJ 372 (MP).
8. As a result of the revision succeeds. The order of learned Tribunal is set aside with the direction that the' learned Tribunal shall calculate the amount is per the principle laid down above and thereafter issue direction to the Insurance Company to deposit the rest of the amount.
In the facts and circumstances of the case the parties shall bear their own costs.
Counsel's fee Rs. 200.