Full Text
Date of Decision: 7th January, 2015
UP STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Sunit Chander, Adv. with Mr. Shadab Khan, Adv.
Through: Mr. Amit Baisoya, Advocate for Respondents no.1 & 2.
JUDGMENT
1. For the reasons stated in the application, delay of 520 days in filing the appeal is condoned.
2. The application stands disposed of. MAC.APP.639/2012
1. This appeal has been filed by the U.P. State Road Transport Corporation (UPSRTC) seeking recovery of the compensation already paid to the claimants from Uttranchal Parivahan Nigam, Dehradoon (UPND). 2015:DHC:71
2. The deceased Mrs.Chitra Parvati while riding on the pillion of a two wheeler bearing registration No.DNK-0684 met with an accident with a UPSRTC bus bearing registration no.UP-15-1805 on 14.01.1990. At the time of the accident, the bus was being driven by Mehboob Khan, its driver.
3. Initially, the appeal is stated to have been filed by the two claimants against the award dated 09.07.2002 of the Claims Tribunal. The appeal is stated to have been allowed and matter was remanded back to the Claims Tribunal and subsequently, a judgment dated 09.09.2010 was passed whereby compensation of Rs.3,83,000/- was awarded in favour of the claimants.
4. The short ground urged by the learned counsel for the Appellant is that during hearing of the appeal, vakalatnama was filed by Mr. S.K. Srivastava, Advocate on 05.07.2004 (available on page 47 of the paper book) on behalf of UPND on account of re-organisation of the UPSRTC. The learned counsel has also referred to a Notification dated 27.10.2003 (Annexure A-2) whereby there was division of assets, rights and liabilities between UPSRTC and UPND. The learned counsel for the Appellant also refers to Part III of the Notification, which is extracted hereunder:- “PART-III DIVISION OF ASSETS, RIGHTS AND LIABILITIES
5. It is urged by the learned counsel for the Appellants that in terms of paras 4 and 5, Part-II of the Notification, the first bus in question which was of a Roorkee Depot has now fallen under the share of UPND and therefore, it is UPND who is liable to pay the compensation. Consequently, it is urged by the learned counsel for the Appellant that the compensation already paid may be ordered to be recovered by the Appellant from UPND.
6. It may be noted that the Notification simply states that there was division of assets and liabilities including buses between UPSRTC and UPND. No application was moved either by the Appellant or UPND stating that the bus in question had fallen to their share or that the liability in question has been transferred to UPND.
7. It is true that a vakalatnama dated 05.07.2004 had been filed by UPND in the High Court in the earlier appeal but that by itself will not absolve the Appellant of its liability to pay the compensation in respect of accident which took place with the bus owned by the Appellant.
8. The appeal is devoid of any merit; the same is accordingly dismissed.
9. The Appellant, however, shall be at liberty to have appropriate remedy against the UPND, as may be advised.
10. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
JUDGE JANUARY 07, 2015 vk