U.P. State Road Transport Corporation v. Compotar

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court
Hon'ble Judges: Dr. Arijit Pasayat
P. Sathasivam
Judgment Date: 2008-03-10
Court Decision / Holding: Appeal disposed of. The Supreme Court held that the High Court’s order directing deposit of the entire amount was practically unreasoned and directed the High Court to re-consider the matter and pass a fresh order.
Final Disposition: Appeal disposed of.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

U.P. State Road Transport Corporation

Respondents

Compotar

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Tania Singh
• Rameshwar Prasad Goyal

Case Synopsis & Summary

This Civil Appeal challenges a Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court’s order directing the UP State Road Transport Corporation to deposit the entire amount awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in MACC No. 431 of 2005. The Tribunal had awarded compensation of Rs. 8 lakhs along with interest at 6 percent from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. On appeal, the Allahabad High Court directed the appellant to deposit the full award amount and ordered that the deposited funds be invested and paid to the claimant-respondent in accordance with the Tribunal’s directions. The appellant contends that the claim was detailed, frivolous and false, and that the High Court should not have directed deposit of the entire amount or permitted the claimant to receive the deposited funds. It is noted that the accident purportedly occurred on 24 December 2000, the FIR was lodged on 31 May 2001, and in December 2005 a claim petition under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 was filed. The appellant argues that the High Court’s order is unwarranted and unreasoned, and that deposit should be reconsidered with clear reasoning. The Supreme Court, however, directs the High Court to re‑consider the matter and pass a fresh order, to avoid delay and prejudice to the parties.

Provisions of Law Cited

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The appellant contends that the claim lodged by Respondent No.1 was frivolous and false. The High Court directed deposit of the entire amount and payment of the deposited funds to the claimant without giving reasons for such a deposit, which would cause prejudice and delay. The claim relates to an accident said to have occurred on 24.12.2000; the FIR was dated 31.5.2001; and a claim petition under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 was filed in December 2005. The Tribunal awarded Rs.8 lakh plus interest at 6% from the date of filing till payment. The appellant submits that the directive to deposit the entire award is unwarranted, and that deposit should be examined on its merits rather than automatically paid to the claimant, warranting fresh consideration by the High Court.

Contentions of Respondents

The document does not set out explicit arguments attributed to the respondent. The appeal is argued primarily on the basis of the appellant’s contentions; the respondents’ position is not elaborated in the text provided.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

I J [2008] 4 S.C.R. 620 A ## U.P. STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION _*-_ _V._ B COM POT AR (Civil Appeal No.1868 of 2008) MARCH 10, 2008 [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND P. SATHASIVAM, JJ.] ## _Motor Vehicles Act, 1988:_ _Accident_ - _Claims Tribunal awarded compensation_ - _On_ c _appeal, High Court directed Appellant-State Road Transport Corporation to deposit the entire amount awarded by Tribunal_ , - _The Court directed that the amount be invested and paid to claimant-Respondent No. 1 in accordance with directions of the Tribunal_ - _Challenge to_ - _Held: Order of High Court was_ D _practically unreasoned_ -- _No reason had been indicated_ as _to why the amount was to be paid to the claimant on deposit_ - _Direction to High Court to re-consider the matter_ The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal awarded E[compensation ][of ][Rs.8 lakhs alongwith interest at the rate ] of 6% from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. On appeal, High Court directed the Appellant-State Road Transport Corporation to deposit the entire amount awarded by the Claims Tribunal. The Court directed that the amount be invested and paid to F the claimant-Respondent No.1 in accordance with the directions of the Tribunal. ~ ., .. > In appeal to this Court, the contention of the Appellant is that the claim lodged by Respondent No.1 G[was ][frivolous ][and false and that ][while ][admitting ][the ] appeal, the High Court should not have directed deposit of the entire amount and should not have permitted the claimant-Respondent No.1 to be paid the amount of deposit. 1320 H U.P. STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION _v._ COMP.OTAR [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.] 621 .. l' Disposing of the appeal, the Court A > HELD: The order of the High Court is practically unreasoned and no reason has been indicated as to why the High Court felt that the amount was to be p&ld to the claimant on deposit. Therefore, the High Court is directed to re consider the matter and pass fresh ordor.[8 ] [Para 5] [622-B, C] CIVILAPPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 1868 of 2008 From the final Order dated 19/4/2007 of the High Court of C Judicature atAllahabad in F.A.F.O. No. 1092/2007 Tania Singh and Rameshwar Prasad Goyal for the Appellant. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by D DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. Challenge in this appeal is to the order passed by a Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court directing the appellant to deposit the entire amount awarded by the Motor E Accident Claims Tribunal/Special Judge, Mathura in MACC No. 431 of2005. It was directed that the amount was to be invested and paid to the claimant-respondent No.1 in accordance with the directions of the Tribunal. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that a F detailed, frivolous and false claim was lodged. It was submitted that a bare look at the factual scenario would go to show that the claim has no foundation. The accident purportedly took place on 24.12.2000, the FIR was lodged on 31.5.2001 and in December, 2005 a Claim Petition claiming compensation under G provisions of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (in short the 'Act') was filed. 4 Overlooking these facts, Tribunal awarded 'lmpensation of Rs.8, 11,351 /- alongwith interest at the rate of H 622 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008) 4 S.C.R. A 6% from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. While admitting the appeal the High Court, according to the appellant should not have directed deposit of the entire amount and should not have permitted the claimant to be paid the amount of deposit. 8 5. Notice has not yet been issued in this matter but we feel that the impugned order of the High Court is practically unreasoned and no reason has been indicated as to why the High Court felt that the amount was to be paid to the claimant on deposit. Therefore, we direct the High Court to re consider C the matter and pass fresh order. 6. We have passed this order to avoid unnecessary delay and inconvenience to the parties. 7. The appeal is accordingly disposed of. D 8.8.8. Appeal disposed of. •