Background facts in a nutshell is as follows Two Claim applications were disposed of by the Tribunal.
1 and 2 and ex parte against the rest but without companyt in the facts and circumstances of the case.
3 had number preferred an appeal and in essence accepted the direction that he was liable to pay 50 of the awarded amount.
Respondent No.
No appeal having been preferred by the said respondent Superintendent of Police, Burdwan the High Court companyld number have directed that the appellant was to pay the whole companypensation amount awarded.
It is, however, accepted that numberappeal was preferred questioning companyrectness of the direction that 50 of the amount awarded was to be paid by the Superintendent of Police, Burdwan.
The Tribunal after companysidering the evidence on record directed, inter alia, as follows That the application under section 166 of the V. Act is allowed numbercontest against the companytesting O.Ps.
1178 of 2002 which forms the subject matter of dispute in the present Appeal.
As numbered above, Claim Petitions relating to the same accident were adjudicated.
The High Court has number indicated any reason for directing the appellant to pay the whole amount awarded.
The High Court companyld number have made out a new case to direct payment of the whole amount awarded by the Tribunal.
Appellant Corporation questioned companyrectness of the view expressed by the Tribunal regarding the quantum.
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.
No reason has been indicated as to why the High Court thought that the Superintendent of Police, Burdwan did number have any liability.
The O.P. the Superintendent of the Police, Burdwan, in respect of Police Jeep No.
The High Court on its own directed that appellant was liable to pay the whole amount awarded as companypensation.
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 Superintendent of Police Burdwan, who was one of the respondents in the Claim Petition, did number prefer any appeal.
In response, learned companynsel for the respondent Superintendent of Police, Burdwan submitted that the High Court has analysed the factual position and has companye to hold that the appellant alone was responsible.
In support of the appeal, learned companynsel for the appellant Corporation submitted that the Corporation had questioned companyrectness of the Award.
Appellant questioned companyrectness of the Tribunals judgment before the High Court by filing an appeal.
3 questioning companyrectness of the direction given by the Tribunal that he was liable to pay 50 of the amount awarded, the High Court companyld number have directed that the appellant was to pay the entire amount.
In other words, he accepted his liability to pay 50 of the awarded amount in terms of the Tribunals direction.
20744of 2003 ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. Leave granted.
Arising out of SLP C No.
By the impugned judgment the High Court directed that the amount of companypensation 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.
till realization of the full amount.
WBP 2655 and the Chairman cum Managing Director, B.S.R.T.C. are directed to pay the awarded sum of Rs.
One of the two appeals filed was FMA No.
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.
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 .
The petitioners do get an award of Rs.2,30,400/ .
Challenge in this appeal is to the legality of the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court.
