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 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.

                                                              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 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
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Tribunal and the remaining 20%, with accrued interest, was withdrawn by  the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 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   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 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.
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.