# Regional Manager U.P.S.R.T.C., Azamgarh v. Subedar & Ors

- **Citation:** (2020) 12 ILRA 118
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2020-12-02
- **Case number:** First Appeal From Order No. 1608 of 2020
- **Bench:** Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/regional-manager-u-p-s-r-t-c-azamgarh-v-subedar-ors-45442
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

A. Civil Law - Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 -
Section 147 - Existence of valid insurance
policy and proper driving licence - Liability of
Insurance Company - Exoneration of the
Company - Legality - Held, the judgment
and award of the Tribunal, not holding the
Insurance Company liable, is bad. (Para 4, 5
and 7)

Appeal allowed (E-1)

Cases relied on :-

## Text

118 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

6. Learned counsel Sri S.K.
Mehrotra tried to point out that the
Judgment is just and proper, however, I am
not convinced as the statute demands that
the claimant becomes entitled to interest
within a period of one month from the date
the amount accrues to him. In our case, the
amount accrued to him one month after the
accident took place, i.e., 25.10.2017 and
the owner Vimal Kumar Verma, who was
insured by the respondent no.2 did not
make the payment.

7. In view of the aforesaid,
Judgment and award impugned herein is
modified. If the Insurance Company has not
yet deposited the amount, it shall deposit
the amount with interest at the rate of 12%
from one month from the date of accident,
i.e., 25.11.2017."

6. In view of the above, this appeal is
partly allowed. The judgment and award of
the learned Commissioner shall stand
modified to the extent that the insurance
company shall deposit the amount with
interest from one month from the date of
accident, i.e. 3.12.2017.

7. It goes without saying that once the
amount is deposited, the Commissioner
shall disburse the same and the Insurance
company shall not deduct TDS as against
the settled principles of law.

8. Despite directions of this Court, it
appears that the learned Commissioner is
not following the dictate of the legislation.
Hence,
explanation
of
learned
Commissioner be called for as to why
without assigning reasons, she had granted
interest from the date of order.

9. This Court is thankful to both the
learned Advocates for ably assisting this
Court. A copy of this order be sent to the
learned Commissioner below calling for his
remarks.

10. The matter be placed before the
undersigned on 15.1.2021 perusing the
remarks of the undersigned.
----------
(2020)12ILR A118
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 02.12.2020

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE DR. KAUSHAL JAYENDRA THAKER, J.

First Appeal From Order No. 1608 of 2020

Regional Manager U.P.S.R.T.C., Azamgarh
 ...Appellant
Versus
Subedar & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellant:
Sri Sanjeev Kumar Yadav

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Brijesh Chandra Naik, Sri Sanjay Kumar
Srivastava

A. Civil Law - Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 -
Section 147 - Existence of valid insurance
policy and proper driving licence - Liability of
Insurance Company - Exoneration of the
Company - Legality - Held, the judgment
and award of the Tribunal, not holding the
Insurance Company liable, is bad. (Para 4, 5
and 7)

Appeal allowed (E-1)

Cases relied on :-

1. U.P. State Road Transport Corporation Vs
Rajendri Devi & ors., 2020 (3) T.A.C. 66 SC.
2. F.A.F.O. No.1507 of 2003; U.P.S.R.T.C. Vs Smt.
Sukha Devi & ors. decided on 3.11.2016 (DB)
3. U.P. State Road Transport Corporation Vs
Kulsum
&
ors.,
(2011)
8
S.C.C.
142
12 All. Regional Manager U.P.S.R.T.C., Azamgarh Vs. Subedar & Ors.
119
4. F.A.F.O. No. 857 of 2000; U.P.S.R.T.C. Vs
Jainendra
Srivastava
&
ors.
decided
on
17.4.2019
(Delivered by Hon'ble Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker, J.)

1. Heard Sri Sanjeev Kumar Yadav,
learned counsel for the appellant and Sri
Brijesh Chandra Naik, learned counsel for
the
respondent.Sri
Sanjay
Kumar
Srivastava,
learned
counsel
for
the
respondent, has absented himself even in
the third round.

2. This appeal, at the behest of
U.P.S.R.T.C., challenges the judgment and
award dated 10.08.2017 passed by Motor
Accident
Claims
Tribunal/Additional
District Judge, Court No.1 (hereinafter
referred to as 'Tribunal') in MACP No.552
of 2013.

3. The only grievance raised is that
the vehicle which was placed at their
command was insured. The U.P.S.R.T.C.
does
not
challenge
the
quantum,
involvement of the vehicle and the
judgment on merits.

4. Facts are not necessary. However,
the skeletal facts goes to show that the
appellant entered into an agreement with
the owner of the bus. The bus was placed at
the service of the appellant which met with
an accident. The bus was insured with New
India Assurance Co. Ltd. The Tribunal
exonerated the Insurance Company and
mulcted the liability on the present
appellant. This has aggrieved the appellant.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant
submits that after holding issue number 2
and 3 in the favour of the appellant namely
driver had proper driving license, the
Tribunal has exonerated the Insurance
Company.
Learned
counsel
for
the
appellant has further submitted that the
vehicle was insured on the date of accident
and that the said issue recently came before
the Apex Court in U.P. State Road
Transport Corporation Vs. Rajendri
Devi and others, 2020 (3) T.A.C. 66 SC.
which also support his argument.

6. While going through the award, it is
clear that issue numbers 2 and 3 are in favour
of appellant despite that why the Tribunal did
not follow the judgment of this Court in First
Appeal From Order No.1507 of 2003
(U.P.S.R.T.C. Vs. Smt. Sukha Devi and
others) decided on 3.11.2016 (DB) and the
Apex Court in U.P. State Road Transport
Corporation Vs. Kulsum and others,
2011(8) S.C.C. 142 which are the judgments
much prior in point of time as the judgment
of the Tribunal is of 10.8.2017. There is no
discussion by the Tribunal as to why the
Insurance Company has not been mulcted
with the liability despite the fact vehicle was
insured, the driver had valid driving license
and that there was no breach of policy
conditions proved before the Tribunal. The
award is silent about the same.

7. Similar mistake has been committed by
the Division Bench of this Court which has been
corrected by the Apex Court in U.P. State Road
Transport Corporation Vs. Rajendri Devi
and others (Supra). I am even fortified in my
view by the decisions of this Court in
U.P.S.R.T.C. Vs. Smt. Sukha Devi and others
(Supra) and in First Appeal From Order No.857
of
2000
(U.P.S.R.T.C.
Vs.
Jainendra
Srivastava and others) decided on 17.4.2019.
This Court, therefore, holds that the judgment
and award of the Tribunal in not holding the
Insurance Company liable is bad.

8. In view of the above, the appeal is
allowed. The Insurance Company will have
120 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
to deposit the amount within 12 weeks
from today as per the order of the Tribunal
and, if the amount has already been
deposited by U.P.S.R.T.C., the same shall
be refunded to the U.P.S.R.T.C. by the
Insurance Company through owner of the
vehicle.

9.

The
statutory
deposit
of
Rs.25,000/-
shall
be
returned
to
U.P.S.R.T.C.

10. This Court is thankful to Sri
Sanjeev Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for
the appellant and Sri Brijesh Chandra Naik,
learned counsel for the respondent for ably
assisting this court.

11. A copy of this judgment be
circulated to all the Tribunals in the State of
U.P. so that in future where vehicle of
U.P.S.R.T.C. is involved and if there is no
breach of policy conditions as per Section
147 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the
Insurance Company may be held liable.
----------
(2020)12ILR A120
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 10.12.2020

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE DR. KAUSHAL JAYENDRA THAKER, J.

First Appeal From Order No. 1673 of 2020

Sri Shiv Lal & Anr. ...Appellants
Versus
Sri Vivek Shanker Gupta & Anr.
 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellants:
Sri Shreesh Srivastava

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Radhey Shyam
A. Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923-
Section
4A-Compensation-Amount
of
Interest-Practice of granting interest less
than 12% -Held, the amount would carry
12% rate of interest from one month from
the date of accident-Once the amount is
deposited, the Tribunal shall disburse the
same and the Insurance company shall
not deduct TDS (Tax Deduction at Source)
. (Para 8 and 9)
B. Interpretation of Statute - Word 'Shall'
used in Section 4A-It has mandatory
effect. (Para 4 and 5)

Appeal allowed (E-1)

Cases relied on :-

1. Oriental Insurance Company Vs Siby George
& ors., 2012(4) T.A.C. 4 (SC)
2. Civil Appeal No. 7470 of 2009; North East
Karnataka Road Transport Corporation Vs Smt.
Sujatha decided on 2.11.2018
3. Civil Appeal No. 10018 of 2017; Smt. Surekha
& ors. Vs the Branch Manager, National
Insurance Company Ltd. decided on 3.8.2017
4. F.A.F.O. No. 1538 of 2020; Miskina & 5 ors.
Vs M/s H.D.F.C. Egro General Insurance Ltd. &
anr. decided on 26.11.2020
5. F.A.F.O. No. 1553 of 2020; Sanju Kushwaha
Vs Vimal Kumar Verma decided on 3.12.2020
6. Smt. Hansagori P. Ladhani Vs The Oriental
Insurance Company Ltd., reported in 2007(2)
GLH 291

(Delivered by Hon'ble Dr. Kaushal
Jayendra Thaker, J.)

1. Heard Sri Shreesh Srivastava,
learned counsel for the appellant and Sri
Radhey
Shyam,
learned
counsel
for
respondent-Insurance Company. Owner's
presence is not required, hence, no notice is
issued.

2. This appeal, at the behest of the
claimants, challenges the judgment and