ADMINISTRATOR, B.S.R.T.C. v. RANJANA MAJHI AND ORS.

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court
Hon'ble Judges: Arijit Pasayat
Lokeswar Singh Pant
Judgment Date: 2006-07-17
Court Decision / Holding: Appeal partly allowed; The amount awarded shall be equally paid by the appellant (Administrator, B.S.R.T.C.) and the respondent No. 3—Superintendent of Police, Burdwan—as directed by the Tribunal; No costs.
Final Disposition: Partly allowed

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

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

Respondents

Ranjana Majhi and ors

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• lrshard Ahmad

Counsels for Respondents

• Rana S. Biswas
• Sarla Chandra
• Avijit Bhattacharjee
• Bikash Kar Gupta
• Saumya Kundu

Case Synopsis & Summary

An accident resulted in the death of Basudev Majhi involving two vehicles—one owned by the Administrator, B.S.R.T.C., and the other by the West Bengal Police Department. The Motor Vehicles Act claims were heard by the Fourth Court of MACT, Burdwan. The Tribunal awarded Rs. 2,30,400 and directed the respondents to pay the amount in equal shares (Rs. 1,15,200 each) within two months, with 12 percent interest if delayed. The Corporation challenged both the Tribunal’s quantum and the liability split, while the Superintendent of Police Burdwan did not appeal, effectively accepting the Tribunal’s direction to pay 50% by the Police. The Calcutta High Court, however, upheld the award but directed the entire amount to be paid by the appellant. The Corporation argued that, since there was no cross-appeal by the Police against the 50% liability, the High Court could not fashion a new case and direct payment of the full amount by the Corporation, and that no reason had been given for departing from the Tribunal’s scheme. The Supreme Court agreed that the High Court cannot substitute its own view for an unchallenged finding and that the Tribunal’s 50-50 allocation should be restored. It allowed the appeal to the extent of restoring equal liability, directing the amount to be paid equally by the Corporation and the Police.

Provisions of Law Cited

Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988Section 166A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The appellant, Administrator, B.S.R.T.C., contends that the High Court could not alter the Tribunal’s allocation of liability simply because the Police did not file an appeal; there was no cross-appeal challenging the Tribunal’s 50% liability on the Police. The High Court’s directive to make the Corporation pay the entire amount amounts to creating a new case not urged by the parties, and the quantum of Rs. 2,30,400, being undisputed in its total, should be payable in equal shares as originally ordered by the Tribunal.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents contend that the High Court’s analysis is correct in recognizing the appellant’s liability for the entire amount, given that the Police did not challenge the Tribunal’s allocation and that the Tribunal’s order directing 50% against the Police stands; the non-appeal does not automatically negate the responsibility determined by the Tribunal. The appellant’s sole liability cannot be inferred merely because the Police did not appeal; the High Court was justified in examining the liability as framed by the Tribunal.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

## ADMINISTRATOR, B.S.R.T.C. # _v._ RANJANA MAJHI AND ORS. ## JULY 17,2006 [ARIJJT PASAYA T AND LOKESHWAR SINGH PANT A, JJ.] _Motor Vehicles Act, 1980-Section 166-Compensation-Two parties directed to pay awarded amount in equal shares-First party challenging the award directed by High Court to pay the entire amount awarded without_ C _indicating any reasons-Correctness of-Held: Second party did not challenge the direction to pay 50% of amount awarded, in essence accepted the directions, thus High Court could not make out a new case by directing the first party to poy the entire amount as compensation-Thus, amount awarded to be paid equally by both the parties._ D· An accident resulted in the death of Bin which vehicles belonging to the appellant-Corporation and respondent no. 3-police department were involved. Tribunal disposed of the claim petitions, directing the amount awarded to be paid in equal shares by the Corporation and the Police Department. Appellant filed an appeal questioning the correctness of award. High Court upheld the award but directed the entire amount awarded to be paid by the E appellant. Hence the present appeal. Partly allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: There was no challenge by respondent No. 3-Police Department questioning correctness of the direction given by the Tribunal that he was F liable to pay 50% of the amount awarded, as such the High Court could not have directed that the appellant was to pay the whole amount awarded as compensation. High Court could not have made out a new case to direct payment of the whole amount awarded by the Tribunal. High Court on its own passed such directions and did not indicate any reason for the same. Appellant- G Corporation questioned correctness of the view expressed by the Tribunal regarding the quantum. 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 amount awarded is to be equally paid by the appellant and H 627 628 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006) SUPP. 3 S.C.R. A respondent No. 3. (629-F-H; 630-A( CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 3000 of2006. From the Judgment. and Order dated 11.4.2003 of the High Court of Calcutta in F.M.A. No. 1178/2000. B lrshard Ahmad for the Appellant. Rana S. Biswas, Sarla Chandra, Avijit Bhattacharjee, Bikash Kar Gupta and Saumya Kundu for the Respondent. C The Judgment of the Court was delivered by ## 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 D 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: E 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 _:-_ F G "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_ 0. _P. the Superintendent of the Police, Burdwan, in respect of Police Jeep No. WBP-2655 and the Chairman-cum-Managing Director, B.S. R. TC. are directed to pay the awarded sum of Rs. 2,30,4001- in equal shares i.e. Rs. 1,15,2001- 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." H (Underlined for emphasis) ## ADMINISTRATOR, B.S.R.T.C. v. RANJANA MAJHI [PASA YAT, J.] 629 Tribunal disposed of the Claim Petition lodged in terms of Section 166 A 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 notetl above, Claim Petitions relating to the same accident were adjudicated. One of the two appeals filed was FMA No. 1178 of 2002 which forms the subject matter of dispute in the present B 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 C 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 D 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, E 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 qm:stioning correctness of the direction that 50% of the amount awarded was to be paid by the Superintendent of Police, Burdwan. F 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 G 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 appeliant was liable to pay the whole amount awarded as compensation. The High Court has not H 630 - SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006J SUPP. 3 S.C.R. - A 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- Superint~ndent of Police-Burdwan as directed by the Tribunal. Appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent. No costs. B N.J. Appeal partly allowed.