U.P. STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATIONversusCOMPOTAR

                                                                   IJ
                        [2008] 4 S.C.R. 620


A       U.P. STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION                       *-
                                 V.
                           COM POTAR
                 (Civil Appeal No.1868 of 2008)
                        MARCH 10, 2008
B
       [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND P. SATHASIVAM, JJ.]

        Motor Vehicles Act, 1988:

        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
       The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal awarded
  compensation of Rs.8 lakhs alongwith interest at the rate
E 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.
       In appeal to this Court, the contention of the
  Appellant is that the claim lodged by Respondent No.1
  was frivolous and false and that while admitting the
G
  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.
H                               1320
      U.P. STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION v.                   621
             COMP.OTAR [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]

          Disposing of the appeal, the Court                           A
          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]
          CIVILAPPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 1868
     of 2008
          From the final Order dated 19/4/2007 of the High Court of C
     Judicature atAllahabad in F.A.F.O. No. 1092/2007
         Tania Singh and Rameshwar Prasad Goyal for the
     Appellant.
          The Judgment of the Court was delivered by                   D

          DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Leave granted.
           2. 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
.
l'
     the directions of the Tribunal.
            3. 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.
          4 Overlooking these facts, Tribunal awarded
      'lmpensation of Rs.8, 11,351 /- alongwith interest at the rate of H
    622       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2008) 4 S.C.R.


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.
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.
         6. We have passed this order to avoid unnecessary delay
    and inconvenience to the parties.
          7. The appeal is accordingly disposed of.
D
    8.8.8.                                   Appeal disposed of.




                                                                        •