ADMINISTRATOR, B.S.R.T.C.versusRANJANA MAJHI AND ORS.

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

                                JULY 17,2006

        [ARIJJT PASAYA T AND LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA, JJ.]                           B


       Motor Vehicles Act, 1980-Section 166-Compensation-Two parties
directed to pay awarded amount in equal shares-First party challenging
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.
                                                                                   D·
      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
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(
          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.
B
          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.

          Background facts in a nutshell is as follows:

E          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 :-

F          "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
G          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."
H                                                       (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 present          B
Appeal.

      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.

        In support of the appeal, learned counsel for the appellant-Corporation    C
submitted that the Corporation had questioned correctness of the Award. The
Superintendent of Police Burdwan, who was one of the respondents in the
Claim Petition, did not prefer any appeal. In other words, he accepted his
liability to pay 50% of the awarded amount in terms of the Tribunal's direction.
No appeal having been preferred by the said respondent-Superintendent of           D
Police, Burdwan the High Court could not have directed that the appellant
was to pay the whole compensation amount awarded. No reason has been
indicated as to why the High Court thought that the Superintendent of Police,
Burdwan did not have any liability.

      In response, learned counsel for the respondent-Superintendent of Police, E
Burdwan submitted that the High Court has analysed the factual position and
has come to hold that the appellant alone was responsible. It is, however,
accepted that no appeal was preferred qm:stioning correctness of the direction
that 50% of the amount awarded was to be paid by the Superintendent of
Police, Burdwan.
                                                                                   F
       We find substance in the plea of learned counsel for the appellant that
since there was no challenge by the respondent No. 3 questioning correctness
of the direction given by the Tribunal that he was liable to pay 50% of the
amount awarded, the High Court could not have directed that the appellant
was to pay the entire amount. Appellant-Corporation questioned correctness         G
of the view expressed by the Tribunal regarding the quantum. The High Court
could not have made out a new case to direct payment of the whole amount
awarded by the Tribunal. 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 High Court on its own directed that appeliant was liable
to pay the whole amount awarded as compensation. The High Court has not            H
    630                     SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006J SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

A indicated any reason for directing the appellant to pay the whole amount
    awarded. To that extent the appeal deserves to be allowed. The amount
    awarded shall be equally paid by the appellant and the respondent No. 3-
    Superint~ndent of Police-Burdwan as directed by the Tribunal.


           Appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent. No costs.
B
    N.J.                                                  Appeal partly allowed.