http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

CASE NO.: Appeal (civil)  3000 of 2006

PETITIONER: Administrator, B.S.R.T.C.

RESPONDENT: Ranjana Majhi & Ors.

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 17/07/2006

BENCH: ARIJIT PASAYAT & LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA

JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 20744of 2003)

ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.  

       Leave granted.

       Challenge in this appeal is to the legality of the judgment  rendered by a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court.  By  the impugned judgment the High Court directed that the  amount of compensation awarded by the 4th Court of Motor  Accidents Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge Burdwan  (in short the ’Tribunal’) was to be paid by the appellant.                   Background facts in a nutshell is as follows:           Two Claim applications were disposed of by the Tribunal.  In the accident resulting in the death of Basudev Majhi two  vehicles were involved, one belonging to the appellant  Corporation while the other one belonged to the police  department of West Bengal. The Tribunal after considering the  evidence on record directed, inter alia, as follows :-

"That the application under section 166 of the  M.V. Act is allowed no contest against the  contesting O.Ps. 1 and 2 and ex parte against  the rest but without cost in the facts and  circumstances of the case.  The petitioners do  get an award of Rs.2,30,400/-.  The O.P. the  Superintendent of the Police, Burdwan, in  respect of Police Jeep No. WBP-2655 and the  Chairman-cum-Managing Director, B.S.R.T.C.  are directed to pay the awarded sum of Rs.  2,30,400/- in equal shares i.e. Rs. 1,15,200/-  each to the petitioners in the following manner  within two months from the days of the order  failing which the petitioners are entitled to get  an interest @ 12% p.a. till realization of the full  amount."                                         (Underlined for emphasis)

Tribunal disposed of the Claim Petition lodged in terms of  Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (in short the ’Act’).

Appellant questioned correctness of the Tribunal’s  judgment before the High Court by filing an appeal.  As noted  above, Claim Petitions relating to the same accident were  adjudicated.  One of the two appeals filed was FMA No. 1178

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

of 2002 which forms the subject matter of dispute in the  present Appeal.

       The High Court in essence upheld the Award made by the  Tribunal, but directed that the entire amount awarded was to  be paid by the appellant.

       In support of the appeal, learned counsel for the  appellant-Corporation submitted that the Corporation had  questioned correctness of the Award.  The Superintendent of  Police Burdwan, who was one of the respondents in the Claim  Petition, did not prefer any appeal.  In other words, he  accepted his liability to pay 50% of the awarded amount in  terms of the Tribunal’s direction.  No appeal having been  preferred by the said respondent-Superintendent of Police,  Burdwan the High Court could not have directed that the  appellant was to pay the whole compensation amount  awarded.  No reason has been indicated as to why the High  Court thought that the Superintendent of Police, Burdwan did  not have any liability.

       In response, learned counsel for the respondent-  Superintendent of Police, Burdwan submitted that the High  Court has analysed the factual position and has come to hold  that the appellant alone was responsible. It is, however,  accepted that no appeal was preferred questioning correctness  of the direction that 50% of the amount awarded was to be  paid by the Superintendent of Police, Burdwan.

       We find substance in the plea of learned counsel for the  appellant that since there was no challenge by the respondent  No. 3 questioning correctness of the direction given by the  Tribunal that he was liable to pay 50% of the amount  awarded, the High Court could not have directed that the  appellant was to pay the entire amount. Appellant-Corporation  questioned correctness of the view expressed by the Tribunal  regarding the quantum. The High Court could not have made  out a new case to direct payment of the whole amount  awarded by the Tribunal.  Respondent No. 3 had not preferred  an appeal and in essence accepted the direction that he was  liable to pay 50% of the awarded amount. The High Court on  its own directed that appellant was liable to pay the whole  amount awarded as compensation.  The High Court has not  indicated any reason for directing the appellant to pay the  whole amount awarded.  To that extent the appeal deserves to  be allowed.  The amount awarded shall be equally paid by the  appellant and the respondent No. 3-Superintendent of Police- Burdwan as directed by the Tribunal.                  Appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent. No costs.