Dismissed

Assistant Commissioner, Entertainment Tax v. Bablu

Uttarakhand HC15 Dec 2021AO/448/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed an appeal filed by the Assistant Commissioner challenging a motor accident compensation award. The court held that the vehicle registration owner is a sufficient party and that the Tribunal did not need to determine earning capacity absent a denial of the claimant's averments.

What did the court decide?

The amount deposited along with statutory deposit to be released to the claimant with accrued interest upon proper application.

Assistant Commissioner, Entertainment Tax Vs Bablu — Motor Accident Claims | Uttarakhand HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

¶2

AO No. 448 of 2011

¶3

Assistant Commissioner, Entertainment Tax

¶4

.......….......Defendant/Appellant

¶5

-versus-

¶6

Bablu and another

¶7

........ ..Claimants/Respondents

¶8

Date of hearing and Judgement : 15.12.2021

¶9

Advocates appeared in the case:-

¶10

For Appellant : Mr. Suyash Pant, learned Standing Counsel for the State/appellant.

¶11

For Respondents : Mr. Pulak Agarwal, learned counsel for the respondent no.2.

¶12

Sri S.K.Mishra, J.

¶13

Heard Suyash Pant, learned counsel for the appellant/State and Mr. Pulak Agarwal, learned counsel for the respondent no.2.

¶14

The claimant has not appeared in spite of sufficient service. The driver of the vehicle/respondent no.2 is representing through his counsel.

¶15

Assistant Commissioner Entertainment Act, Dehradun has preferred this Appeal against the award passed by the Additional Motor Accident Claim Tribunal/District & Sessions Judge, /3^rd FTC, Dehradun in MACT No. 204 of 2008, awarding compensation of 1,45,022/- to the respondent no. 1.

¶16

¶17

The claimant has not appeared in spite of sufficient notice.

¶18

The first ground that has been taken by the appellant in this case is that the claim application should not have been entertained by the Tribunal as the State of Uttarakhand is not a party. It is also put forth that the State of Uttarakhand is the owner of the vehicle so it is a necessary and proper party. However, having considered the matter on record, this court finds that the registration certificate in respect of the offending vehicle bearing UA 07 E-3577 has been issued in the name of the Assistant Commissioner, Entertainment Tax. So, in such situation, it is not necessary to implead the State of Uttarakhand as a party as no order is being passed effecting the interest of the State directly, though it is effected indirectly. Moreover, proceedings under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, are summary proceedings in which the Tribunal has discretion to adopt such procedure as he deems fit and proper. So, in such situation when the official, in whose name of the registration certificate stands has been made a party and had also contested the claim application and there appears to be no reasonable ground to hold that the claim application is not maintainable in view that the State of Uttarakhand is not a party. The Assistant Commissioner, Entertainment Act is also effectively representing the interest of the State in his official capacity.

¶19

¶20

Another ground on the question of fact that is raised by the appellant in this case is that there is no determination of the earning capacity of the claimant. However, the order passed by the Tribunal is a reasoned order and no evidence has been led on behalf of the contesting respondents. Hence, in the absence of any specific denial or raising plea regarding the income of the claimant, there is no need to enter into this aspect of the case at this appellate stage. Moreover, the applicant has claimed a sum of Rs. 8,000/- per month and the Tribunal has held that the income of the claimant to be 3000/- as he was a motor mechanic. This court finds it to be proper and reasonable, especially, when there is no denial of the averment that the injured was a motor mechanic, by the appellant. There appears to be no substantial ground to entertain the appeal. The appeal, therefore, deserves to be dismissed.

¶21

The appeal is dismissed.

¶22

The amount already deposited along with the statutory deposit, which should be forthwith remitted to the Tribunal by the registry, be released in favour of the claimant on proper application along with the accrued interest thereon.

¶23

There shall be no order as to the costs.

¶24

(S.K.Mishra) Judge

¶25

KKS

¶26

Assistant Commissioner, Entertainment Tax v. Bablu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Assistant Commissioner, Entertainment Tax v. Bablu

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

Bache Ram Vs State of U.P

Shishir Singh Rana Vs State of Uttarakhand

M/S Avtar Singh Fateh Singh through Its Proprietor Vs Vinay Kumar Agarwal

Sunita Jain Vs the Commissioner Garhwal Mandal Pauri

Ratan Singh Vs Nakli Singh

Sumedh Saini Vs Assistant Collector 1ST Class Haridwar