MACT Award Unpaid For 43 Yrs: Allahabad HC Raps DM Over 'Objectionable' Justification, Mulls ₹10 Lakh Costs On Officials

During the hearing of the case, a bench of Justice Rajan Roy and Justice Om Prakash Shukla took exception to the stand of the District Magistrate, Sultanpur, who sought to justify the non-payment of the award by contending that the recovery was to be made from the Superintendent of Police, as the vehicle involved in the accident belonged to the police.

The Court categorically rejected this explanation, as it observed thus:

"The explanation given on the face of it is not acceptable rather it is highly objectionable. Merely because the vehicle involved in the accident was a police vehicle can hardly be a reason for State Authorities not to comply the award and not to recover and deposit compensation with the MACT, Sultanpur".

The Bench further noted that the compensation awarded in 1982 was ₹26,400 with interest at 6% per annum. However, when the Court inquired about the current outstanding amount, the District Magistrate claimed it was '₹27,000/- and odd'.

The Court expressed 'surprise' at this figure and asked how such a small increase was possible over more than four decades, with 6% per annum interest. To this, the DM explained that interest was calculated only from the date of the incident till the date of rendering of the award.

The division bench, however, rejected this contention as well and clarified that the interest has to be calculated from the date of the award till its actual payment

Following this, the Court directed the DM to depute an officer to recalculate the due amount in accordance with the above observation and communicate it to the Superintendent of Police, Sultanpur, within three days.

Thereafter, the Court directed, the SP would remit the due amount to the Revenue Officers within 15 days.

Failing this, the Court ordered the SP, as well as the Additional Chief Secretary (Home), Government of Uttar Pradesh and the DM TO appear in person on the next date of hearing [July 28].

Additionally, the Court also directed the above-named officials to show cause, by filing an affidavit, as to why exemplary costs for harassing the petitioner by not recovering the due amount under the Recovery Certificate, "at least to the extent of Rs.10 lacs," should not be imposed upon them.