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

Citation: [2006] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 627 · Decided: 17-07-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

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 
A 
B 
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. 
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 
D· 
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 
627 
H 
628 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006) SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 
A respondent No. 3. (629-F-H; 630-A( 
B 
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. 
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. 
E 
F 
G 
H 
Background facts in a nutshell is as follows: 
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 :-
"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." 
(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 prese

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.