Point of Law: Purpose of keeping compensation in F.D.R. is to safeguard the interest of the claimants. As 20 years have elapsed, the amount be deposited in the Saving Account of claimants in Nationalized Bank without F.D.R.

JUDGMENT :

Dr. K.J. Thaker

1. Heard Sri Shashi Prakash Singh, assisted by Sri Satish Kumar Rai, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Rahul Pandey, learned counsel for the respondents-claimants.

2. This appeal challenges the order dated 12.9.2019 which was passed in M.A.C.P. No.787 of 2002 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ghaziabad, wherein the Tribunal, after the remand by this Court, has decided the matter on the issue of quantum of compensation as directed by this Court in F.A.F.O. No.1087 of 2007 which was preferred by the claimants (quorum : Hon.Mr.Justice Sudhir Agrawal and Hon.Mr.Justice Brijesh Kumar Srivastava-II).

3. The award was for grant of compensation for the death of the bread winner of whom the respondents are the legal heirs. The respondents had challenged the award passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal dated 12.9.2019. First Appeal From Order No.1087 of 2007. No appeal was preferred by the Union of India. The Union of India had not challenged nor had filed any cross-objection in the said appeal. After a period of about 8 years more particularly on 15.7.2015, the matter was remitted back to the Tribunal and paragraph no.11 of the said judgment reads as follows:-

“11. The appeal is accordingly partly allowed. The matter is remanded to the Tribunal to decide the matter afresh on the question of quantum of compensation only. The Tribunal shall not be prejudiced by any of the observations made by us in the body of the judgment. Since the matter is old, it shall be decided by Tribunal expeditiously, keeping its own roster in mind.”

4. The matter came to be remanded only on the short point as stated above. We do not find any illegality in quantum fixed by Tribunal. In this appeal, grounds of negligence are urged. Counsel for Union of India has contended that the question of contributory negligence was not decided by the Tribunal. The facts of the case rather there is a categorical challenge in paragraph nos. (vii) and (viii). The question now arises whether after a period of 14 years when the Union of India sat silent, can they now be permitted to raise the following grounds:-

“(vii) Because, the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Bijoy Kumar Dugar Vs. Bidyadhar Dutta and others, reported in (2006) 3 SCC 242, has laid down the law that the drivers of both the vehicles should be held responsible equally in case of head on collision and as such in the present case learned Claims Tribunal had erred in holding the negligence of Bus driver and fixing the entire liability upon the appellant/defendant CRPF Tata Bus.

(viii) Because, the driver of the Bus Shri Ratan Kumar Dutta appeared in the witness box as DW-2 and stated on oath that the deceased was driving his car and coming from the opposite direction. At the time of accident, he was overtaking the three wheeler and in order to crossing the three wheeler, he lost his control and dashed in the offending bus resulting died on the spot.”

5. The Tribunal on remand has very categorically mentioned that the parties were heard only for quantum.

With this prelude, this appeal preferred by the Union of India and Commandant 48 Vahini, 138 Battalion, C.R.P.F. Group Centre, Durgapur West Bengal (Owner of Vehicle No.HR-68/0104) requires to be decided. In UPSRTC Vs. Km. Mamta and others, reported in AIR 2016 SC 948, the Apex Court has held that all the grounds raised in appeal must be decided by the appellate court but at the outset a question would arise can after a period of 15 years, a decided controversy which was already decided and in which the appellant herein had not agitated can be agitated for the first time in challenging the subsequent award. The grounds of challenge is to the order dated 12.9.2019 contending that the said is based on perverse findings of fact and contrary to law. The next ground is urged in paragraph no.8 as narrated herein above. This ground cannot be re-agitated and cannot be re-decided when the Union of India had not agitated this ground in the year