Delhi High Court
Up State Road Transport ... vs Dilip G. Krishan & Ors. on 7 January, 2015
Author: G.P. Mittal
$~17
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 7th January, 2015
+ MAC.APP.639/2012
UP STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Sunit Chander, Adv. with
Mr. Shadab Khan, Adv.
versus
DILIP G. KRISHAN & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Amit Baisoya, Advocate for
Respondents no.1 & 2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P.MITTAL
JUDGMENT
G. P. MITTAL, J. (ORAL)
CM APPL10378/2012 (delay) in MAC.APP.639/2012
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).
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
"4. Assets, rights and liabilities to be divided as on the
31st March, 2002 - The assets, rights and liabilities of the
existing corporation, other than those dealt with in
paragraph 3, as shown in the balance sheet shall be
divided between the successor authorities in accordance
with the principles contained in this part.
5. Division of assets, rights and liabilities-(1) Issues
on which consensus has been reached between the
successor corporation and successor authorities, action
as per mutual agreement shall be taken.
(2) The assets and liabilities including buses,
inventory, fixed assets and field staff, posts and stores
located in the various regions of the existing corporation
shall be divided on the basis of „as is where is basis‟ as
on appointed day."
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.
(G.P. MITTAL)
JUDGE
JANUARY 07, 2015
vk
