# Manager, U.P. State Road Transport Corporation, Agra v. Compotar

- **Citation:** (2009) 1 ILRA 105
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2008-11-28
- **Case number:** Special Appeal No. 1092 of 2007
- **Bench:** V.M. Sahai, Ran Vijai Singh
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/manager-u-p-state-road-transport-corporation-agra-v-compotar-41294
- **Pages:** 6

## Headnote

Road Transport Corporation Act 1950,
Section-4Motor Vehicle Act 1988-Section
173 readwith Motor Vehicle Rules 1988Rule
204(1)-readwith
Code
of
Civil
Procedure Order 1 Rule 3-Appeal against
motor accident claim Tribunal award-by
Regional Manager of the Corporationheld the owner of vehicle is Corporation
and not the Regional Manager-appeal
not maintainable.

Held: Para 14

From reading of Rule 3 of Order 1 CPC
with Rule 204 and 207 of the Rules it is
clear that the owner of the vehicle and
insurer of the vehicle, are necessary
parties to a claim petition. The Regional
Manager, U.P. State Road Transport
Corporation, Agra is not owner of the
Bus involved in the accident. The owner
of the Bus is the U.P. State Road
Transport Corporation, therefore, the
appeal ought to have been filed by the
U.P. State Road Transport Corporation
through its Managing Director and the
appeal filed by the Regional Manager
who
is
simply
an
officer
of
the
corporation is not maintainable.
Case law discussed:
1977 SC 1701, (2003) 3 SCC 472

## Text

1 All] Regional Manager, U.P.S.R.T.C., Agra V. Compotar
105
application to the issue involved in this
case.

14. In view of the aforesaid
discussions, we do not find any error in
the judgment of the Hon'ble Single Judge
impugned in this appeal and, in our view,
the writ petition has rightly been
dismissed by his Lordship holding that the
petitioner-appellant was not entitled for
any relief.

15. The special appeal lacks merit
and it is accordingly dismissed.
---------
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 28.11.2008

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE V.M. SAHAI, J.
THE HON'BLE RAN VIJAI SINGH, J.

Special Appeal No. 1092 of 2007

Regional
Manager,
U.P.
State
Road
Transport Corporation, Agra ...Appellant

Versus
Compotar

...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellant:
Sri Samir Sharma

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri B.P. Verma

Road Transport Corporation Act 1950,
Section-4Motor Vehicle Act 1988-Section
173 readwith Motor Vehicle Rules 1988Rule
204(1)-readwith
Code
of
Civil
Procedure Order 1 Rule 3-Appeal against
motor accident claim Tribunal award-by
Regional Manager of the Corporationheld the owner of vehicle is Corporation
and not the Regional Manager-appeal
not maintainable.

Held: Para 14

From reading of Rule 3 of Order 1 CPC
with Rule 204 and 207 of the Rules it is
clear that the owner of the vehicle and
insurer of the vehicle, are necessary
parties to a claim petition. The Regional
Manager, U.P. State Road Transport
Corporation, Agra is not owner of the
Bus involved in the accident. The owner
of the Bus is the U.P. State Road
Transport Corporation, therefore, the
appeal ought to have been filed by the
U.P. State Road Transport Corporation
through its Managing Director and the
appeal filed by the Regional Manager
who
is
simply
an
officer
of
the
corporation is not maintainable.
Case law discussed:
1977 SC 1701, (2003) 3 SCC 472

(Delivered by Hon'ble V.M. Sahai, J.)

1. This appeal under section 173 of
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (in brief the
Act 1988) has been filed by Regional
Manager, U.P. State Road Transport
Corporation, Agra challenging the award
of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Mathura dated 16.01.2007.

2. The brief facts are that an
accident took place on 24.12.2000 at 5.30
P.M. with Bus No. UP-80/E-9852 which
hit Moped on which the claimant and his
friend were traveling. Due to injuries
suffered in the accident the right hand of
the claimant was amputated and the
claimant filed the claim petition under
section
166
of
the
Act
claiming
Rs.15,000/- as compensation along with
12% interest for the permanent disability
suffered by him. The claim petition was
contested by the applicant. The Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal recorded a
finding that the accident took place due to
rash and negligent driving of the driver of
the Bus. It further held that insurer of
Moped was not necessary party. After
considering the facts and circumstances of
106 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2009
the case the tribunal assessed the loss of
the income and awarded Rs.8,11,351/-
compensation along with 6% interest.

3. When the appeal was filed it was
admitted on 19.04.2007 and a conditional
stay order was passed by a division bench
of this court. Feeling aggrieved by the
order dated 19.04.2007 the appellant filed
Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 25771
of 2007 which was renumbered as Civil
Appeal No. 1868 of 2008 which has been
disposed by the Apex Court by the
following order:-

".........
Tribunal
awarded
compensation of Rs.8,11,351/- along with
interest at the rate of 6 % from the date of
filling 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.

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 reconsider the matter
and ass fresh order.

We have passed this order to avoid
unnecessary delay and inconvenience to
the parties."

4. We have heard Shri Samir
Sharma for the appellant and Shri B.P.
Verma learned counsel appearing for
respondents. The learned counsel for the
claimant/respondent Shri B.P. Verma has
raised a preliminary objection that the
appeal filed by the Regional Manager,
U.P. State Road Transport Corporation,
Agra is not maintainable. The matter has
been listed today for orders. With the
consent of counsel for the parties, we
have taken up this appeal for final hearing
of the preliminary objection raised by
learned counsel for the respondent.,

5.

Learned
counsel
for
the
claimant/respondent
has
urged
that
Regional Manager, U.P. State Road
Transport Corporation, Agra had no
authority to file an appeal and the appeal
could only be filed by U.P. State Road
Transport Corporation. On the other hand
Shri Samir Sharma learned counsel for the
appellant has urged that since Regional
Manager, U.P. State Road Transport
Corporation, Agra was implemented as
party to the claim petition, therefore, the
appeal
filed
by
the
appellant
is
maintainable. He has further urged that
before the Apex Court, U.P. State Road
Transport
Corporation
through
the
Regional
Manager,
Shajadi
Mandi,
Gwalior Road, Agra had filed a Special
Leave Petition (Civil) challenging the
order dated 19.04.2007, therefore, the
appeal filed by appellant has to be treated
to have been filed by U.P. State Road
Transport
Corporation
and
is
maintainable. He urged that he may be
permitted to amend the array of appellant.

6. The first question is whether an
appeal filed before this court by the
Regional Manager, U.P. State Road
Transport Corporation is maintainable. It
is not disputed that the U.P. State Road
Transport
Corporation
had
been
established under section 3 of the Road
Transport Corporation Act, 1950 (in brief
the Act, 1950).
1 All] Regional Manager, U.P.S.R.T.C., Agra V. Compotar
107

Section 4 of the Act, 1950 is
extracted below:-

"4.
Incorporation-
Every
Corporation shall be a body corporate by
the name notified under section 3 having
perpetual succession and a common seal,
and shall by the said name sue and he
sued.

7. From a plain reading of section 4
it is clear that the U.P. State Road
Transport Corporation can sue and he
sued in its own name through its
Managing Director in view of section 13
read with section 15 of the act, 1950. The
Act, 1950 does not permit other officers
to represent the U.P. State Road Transport
Corporation.

8. Similar question have arisen with
regard to Union of India as to whether
Union of India can sue and be sued in the
name of their officers. The Apex Court in
Ranjeet
Mal
vs.
General
Manager,
Northern Railway, New Delhi and another
AIR 1977 SC 1701 has held in paragraphs
no. 6 and 7 as below:-

"6. It cannot be disputed that the
appellant was a servant of the Union. It is
equally indisputable that any order of
removal is removal from service of the
Union. The appellant challenged that
order. Any order which can be passed by
any Court would have to be enforced
against the Union. The General Manager
or any other Authority acting in the
Railway Administration is as much a
servant of the Union as the appellant was
in the present case.

7. The Union of India represents the
Railway
Administration.
The
Union
carried administration through different
servants. These servants all represents the
Union in regard to activities whether in
the matter of appointment or in the matter
of removal. It cannot be denied that any
order which will be passed on an
application under Article 226 which will
have the effect of setting aside the
removal will fasten liability on the Union
of India, and not on any servant of the
Union. Therefore, from all points of view,
the Union of India was rightly held by the
High Court to be a necessary party. The
petitioner was rightly rejected by the High
Court."

9. Almost similar question with
regard to State came up before the Apex
Court in Chief Conservator of Forests,
Government of A.P. vs. Collector and
others (2003) SCC 472. It was held that in
view of Article 300 of the Constitution of
India, the Government of India and also
the Government of State may sue or sued
by the name of Union of India or by the
name of State respectively. The Apex
Court had also considered the provisions
of section 79 of the Code of Civil
Procedure and Rule 1 of Order 27 C.P.C.
and held as Under:-

"10. A plain reading of Section 79
shows that in a suit by or against the
Government, the authority to be names as
plaintiff or defendant, as the case may be,
in the case of the Central Government, the
Union of India and in the case of the State
Government, the State, which is suing or
is being sued.

11. Rule
1
or
Order
27,
as
mentioned above, deals with suit by or
against the Government or by officers in
their official capacity. Rule 1 of order 27
CPC says that in any suit by or against
the Government, the plaint or the written
statement shall be signed by such person
as the Government may by general or
108 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2009
special order appoint in that behalf and
shall be verified by any person whom the
Government may so appoint."

10. The U.P. State Road Transport
Corporation which is body corporate by
the name notified under section 3 read
with section 4 of the Act, 1950, can sue
and be sued in its own name through the
Managing Director of the Corporation.
The other officers of the corporation, who
may be holding various positions in the
corporation are not a juristic person and
the corporation could not sue or be sued
through them. It is true that the officers of
the corporation can be sued in their
personal capacity. The officers of the
corporation can be made parties to the
suit, claim petition and writ petition along
with
U.P.
State
Road
Transport
Corporation
through
its
Managing
Director as party, then the claim petition
etc. would be maintainable as ultimately
the liability to pay compensation or
compliance of the orders passed by the
Courts would be of the corporation and
officer cannot be held liable to pay
compensation in their persona capacity.
Therefore, we are of the considered
opinion, that the appeal filed by the
Regional Manager, U.P. State Road
Transport Corporation, Agra before this
court is not maintainable.

11. The next argument of learned
counsel for the appellant is that since
Regional Manager, U.P. State Road
Transport Corporation was impleaded as
party to the claim petition the appeal filed
by the Regional Manager is maintainable.

12. We have gone carefully through
the Act, 1988. It does not provide who
would be respondent/opposite parties to
the claim petition. Section 169 lays down
the procedures and powers of the claim
tribunals. It provides that subject to the
rules which may be made the procedures
to be followed would be summary
procedures as is thought fit by the
tribunal.

13. Section 169(2) gives power of
civil court to the tribunal and provides
that the claims tribunal shall be deemed to
be a civil court. Therefore, the Order 1
Rule 3 Code of Civil Procedure Act,
1908, would apply and in a claim petition
filed under section 166 of the Act 1988,
the owner of the vehicle and the insurer of
the vehicle, involved in the accident,
would be necessary parties. Rule 204(1)
of the U.P. Motor Vehicle Rules, 1988
provides
that
every
application
for
payment of compensation made under
section 166 shall as far as possible be
made in form SR-48. In form SR-48
under paragraph 17 name and address of
the owner of the vehicle and in paragraph
18 name and address of the Insurer of the
vehicle has to be mentioned. Under Rule
207 of the Rules the claim tribunal is
required to send notice to the owner of the
Motor Vehicle involved in the accident
and its Insurer, with a copy of the claim
application intimating of the date on
which it would hear the application. It
shall further call upon the parties on that
date to produce any evidence, which they
may like to adduce.

14. From reading of Rule 3 of Order
1 CPC with Rule 204 and 207 of the
Rules it is clear that the owner of the
vehicle and Insurer of the vehicle, are
necessary parties to a claim petition. The
Regional Manager, U.P. State Road
Transport Corporation, Agra is not owner
of the Bus involved in the accident. The
owner of the bus is the U.P. State Road
1 All] Regional Manager, U.P.S.R.T.C., Agra V. Compotar
109
Transport Corporation, therefore, the
appeal ought to have been filed by the
U.P. State Road Transport Corporation
through its Managing Director and the
appeal filed by the Regional Manager
who is simply an officer of the
Corporation is not maintainable.

15. The last arguments of the
learned counsel for the appellant is that
before the Apex Court Special Leave
Petition was filed by the U.P. State Road
Transport
Corporation
through
the
Regional Manager, Agra, and it there was
any defect in the appeal filed by the
appellant before this court it stood Cured
before the Apex Court.

16. We have carefully examined this
aspect, and we have gone through the
array of parties, as mentioned in the order
of the Apex Court. It appears to us that
the Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.
25771 of 2007 was filed by the appellant
before the Apex Court without bringing to
the notice of the Court that the appeal
under section 173 had been filed before
this Court by the Regional Manager, U.P.
State Road Transport Corporation and not
by the U.P. State Road Transport
Corporation. The appellant had not filed
any application before the Apex Court
seeking permission or leave to file the
appeal in the name of U.P. State Road
Transport
Corporation
nor
such
application has been brought on record by
the
appellant,
because
if
such
a
permission would have been granted by
the Apex Court then U.P. State Road
Transport
Corporation
through
its
Managing Director would have been
impleaded as appellant no. 2 before the
apex court along with Regional Manager
as appellant no. 1. This fact does not
appear to have been disclosed by the
appellant
before
the
Apex
Court,
therefore, did not stand cured. U.P. State
Road Transport Corporation had not sued
the claimants in accordance with section 4
of Act, 1950, hence it would not have the
effect of amending the array of appellant
in the appeal which is pending before this
court. The request made by the learned
counsel
for
the
appellant
seeking
permission to amend the array of the
appellant has to be rejected as the
appellants did not disclose material facts
before the apex court.

17. Since we have already held that
U.P. State Road Transport Corporation
was the owner of the bus but it had not
filed any appeal under section 173 of the
Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 before this court
and the Regional Manager, U.P. State
Road Transport Corporation, Agra was
not the owner of the Bus and was not
juristic person and he could not sue or be
sued on behalf of U.P. State Road
Transport Corporation in view of section
4 of the Act, 1950, we have no hesitation
in holding that the appeal filed by the
Regional Manager, U.P. State Road
Transport Corporation, Agra before this
court is not maintainable.

18. Accordingly, the appeal is
dismissed as not maintainable.

19. The amount of Rs.25,000/-
deposited by the appellants in this court
under section 173 of the Motor Vehicle
Act, 1988 shall be returned by the
Registry to the appellant through their
counsel by means of a bank draft within
one month from today.

20. Parties shall bear their own
costs. Appeal dismissed.
---------
110 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2009
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 04.11.2008

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.
THE HON'BLE ARUN TANDON, J.

Special Appeal No. 1498 of 2008

Meena Srivastava

...Appellant

Versus
State of U.P. and others ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellant:
Sri Sanjay Kumar Shukla

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Ghan Shyam Maurya
Sri V.K. Singh
S.C.

Constitution
of
India-Art.226-Writ
Petition-maintainability-
petitioner
working as Shiksha Mitra-Challenge the
advertisement-dismissal
by
Single
Judge-as
Shiksha
Mitra
not
a
Government servant held-action of state
authorities questioned, being arbitrary
and malafide-held writ petition very well
maintainable.

Held: Para 7

We are of the view that the writ petition
was maintainable. The mere fact that the
Shiksha Mitra is paid honorarium by the
state Government cannot be said to a
ground for dismissing the writ petition
as not maintainable when the actions of
the State Officers are impugned in the
writ petition. Petitioner can maintain a
writ petition. We are of the view that the
Hon'ble Single Judge has committed an
error in dismissing the writ petition as
not maintainable.
Case law discussed:
1990 SC 423, 1984 SC 1621

(Delivered by Hon'ble Ashok Bhushan, J.)

1. Heard Sri Sanjay Kumar Shukla,
learned counsel for the appellant, Sri
Shyam Maurya, learned counsel for
respondent no. 5, Sri V.K. Singh, learned
counsel for respondent no. 4 and learned
Standing Counsel for respondent nos. 1 to
3.

2. With the consent of the parties
this special appeal is being disposed of at
the admission stage without calling for
counter affidavit, in view of the order
proposed to be passed today.

3. This special appeal has been filed
against the judgement and order passed by
the Hon'ble single Judge dated 13th
October 2008, whereby the writ petition
filed by the appellant has been dismissed
as not maintainable.

4. The Hon'ble Single Judge has
observed that the appointment of Shiksha
Mitra is contractual in nature and they are
paid
honorarium.
They
are
not
government servant in any case.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant
submits that the Shiksha Mitra is
appointed
in
accordance
with
the
Government Orders issued from time to
time and the amount of honorarium is
paid by the State Government through
Gram Shiksha Samiti. The appointment
and selection are regulated by the
Government Order and implemented by
the State Authorities including the Gram
Shiksha Samiti, District Basic Education
Officer and District Magistrate.

6. In the writ petition the appellant
has challenged the advertisement issued
by the District Basic Shiksha Adhikari,