Disposed

U.P. State Road Transport Corporation v. Compotar

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Compensation awarded by Claims Tribunal

Supreme Court10 Mar 20082008 INSC 331 · [2008] 4 S.C.R. 6202008 INSC 331

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Motor accident compensation case where the Supreme Court found the High Court's direction, on admitting appeal, to deposit the entire Tribunal award and pay it to the claimant was unreasoned. The High Court was directed to reconsider and pass a fresh order; the appeal was disposed of.

What did the court decide?

High Court directed to reconsider and pass a fresh order on deposit/payment of compensation; no other relief granted.

What the court decided

U.P. State Road Transport Corporation versus Compotar — Motor Accident Claims | Supreme Court (2008)

., ..

I J

[2008] 4 S.C.R. 620

A U.P. STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION

COM POT AR

(Civil Appeal No.1868 of 2008)

¶9

MARCH 10, 2008

¶10

B [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND P. SATHASIVAM, JJ.]

¶11

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988:

¶12

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

¶13

~ ~

¶14

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.

¶15

In appeal to this Court, the contention of the Appellant is that the claim lodged by Respondent No.1 G^{wasfrivolousand false and thatwhileadmittingthe} 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.

¶16

1320

¶17

¶18

U.P. STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION v. 621 COMP.OTAR [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]

¶19

.. l'

¶20

Disposing of the appeal, the Court

¶21

¶22

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]

¶23

CIVILAPPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 1868 of 2008

¶24

From the final Order dated 19/4/2007 of the High Court of C Judicature atAllahabad in F.A.F.O. No. 1092/2007

¶25

Tania Singh and Rameshwar Prasad Goyal for the Appellant.

¶26

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

¶27

¶28

DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Leave granted.

¶29

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.

¶30

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.

¶31

4 Overlooking these facts, Tribunal awarded 'lmpensation of Rs.8, 11,351 /- alongwith interest at the rate of H

¶32

622

¶33

SUPREME COURT REPORTS

¶34

[2008) 4 S.C.R.

¶35

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.

¶36

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.

¶37

We have passed this order to avoid unnecessary delay and inconvenience to the parties.

¶38

The appeal is accordingly disposed of.

¶39

D 8.8.8. Appeal disposed of.

¶40

•

U.P. State Road Transport Corporation v. Compotar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

U.P. State Road Transport Corporation v. Compotar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S. Geo Tfch Foundations & Constructon versus Commnr. of Central Excise Pune

Subodh Kumar Jaiswal and Ors. versus Union of India and Ors.

H.P: State Electricity Board and Anr. versus Ranjeet Singh and Ors.

State of U.P. & Ors. versus Chaudhari Ran Beer Singh & Anr.

Hindustan Zinc Ltd. versus Bhagwan Singh Bhati & Ors.

Venkateshappa versus State of Karnataka and Ors.