Important Point
Where an Order was passed by High Court directing appellant to deposit entire amount awarded by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in a Motor Accident Claim and no reason was indicated as to why High Court felt that amount was to be paid to claimant on deposit then said order of High Court was held to be practically unreasoned.

Headnote:Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Motor Accident Claim- Order passed by High Court directing appellant to deposit entire amount awarded by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-Appeal thereagainst – Plea of appellant that a detailed, frivolous and false claim was lodged as accident purportedly took place on 24.12.2000, while Claim Petition claiming compensation was filed. in December, 2005 – According to appellant High Court ought not have directed deposit of entire amount and should not have permitted claimant to be paid amount of deposit – Impugned order of High Court held to be practically unreasoned – No reason was indicated as to why High Court felt that amount was to be paid to claimant on deposit- Direction given to High Court to re consider matter and pass fresh order – Appeal disposed of. (Paras 5, 7)
       Facts of the Case -
       1.Order was passed by High Court directing appellant to deposit entire amount awarded by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in a Motor Accident Compensation Claim herein in the instant case.
       2.Present appeal has been filed against said order of High Court. According to appellant High Court ought not have directed deposit of entire amount and should not have permitted claimant to be paid amount of deposit.
       Findings of the Court :
       The Court held that no reason was indicated as to why High Court felt that amount was to be paid to claimant on deposit. Impugned order of High Court held to be practically unreasoned. Direction was given to High Court to re consider matter and pass fresh order. Appeal was disposed of.
       Result : Appeal disposed of.

judgment

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 Accident Claims Tribunal/Special Judge, Mathura in MACC No. 431 of 2005. It was directed that the amount was to be invested and paid to the claimantrespondent No.1 in accordance with the directions of the Tribunal.

3.Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that a 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 provisions of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (in short the ‘Act’) was filed.

4. Overlooking these facts, Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.8,11,351/- alongwith interest at the rate of 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.

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 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.

***********

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2008 Supreme(SC) 441

2008(2) Supreme 431Supreme Court of indiaDr. Arijit Pasayat & P. Sathasivam, JJ.U.P. State Road Transport Corporation — PetitionerversusCompotar — RespondentAppeal (civil) 1868 of 2008Decided on 10.03.2008

2008(2) Supreme 431
Supreme Court of india
Dr. Arijit Pasayat & P. Sathasivam, JJ.
U.P. State Road Transport Corporation — Petitioner
versus
Compotar — Respondent
Appeal (civil) 1868 of 2008
Decided on 10.03.2008