1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMABY BENCH AT AURANGABAD FIRST APPEAL NO.302 OF 1995 The Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Nanded. ...APPELLANT VERSUS 1) Yamunabai w/o Tulshiram Deokate, Age-25 years, Occupation:Household, 2) Vidyawati d/o Tulshiram Deokate, minor u/g. Of Respondent No.1. 3) Sanjay s/o Tulshiram Deokate, minor u/g. Of Respondent No.1. 4) Eaknath s/o Tulshiram Deokate, minor u/g. Of mother Respondent No.1. All R/o-Somur, Tq-Deglur, Dist-Nanded. 5) Maroti s/o Ghalu Toke, Age-40 years, Cleaner, R/o-Khotmapur, Tq-Deglur, Dist-Nanded. 6) The Executive Engineer, Upper Penganga Project, Nanded. 7) The State through the Collector, Nanded. ...RESPONDENTS. .... Mr.S.V. Kurundkar Advocate for Appellant. None present for Respondent Nos. 1 to 4. Mr.M.V. Deshpande Advocate for Respondent No.5. Mr. M.L. Dharashive A.G.P. For Respondent Nos. 6 and 7 2 ... CORAM: K.K. TATED, J. DATE : 4th MAY, 2009. ORAL JUDGMENT: 1. A short question arise in the present First Appeal, whether the Appellant / original Respondent No.1 is liable to pay the compensation to the Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 / original claimants? 2. Present First Appeal preferred by original Respondent No.1 against the Judgment and award dated 4th February, 1995 passed by District Judge as an Ex-officio Member of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Nanded in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.65 of 1987. 3. On 9th June, 1987 an accident took place, in which Tulshiram died on the spot. Tanker bearing registration No. M.T.G. 2226 in possession of Appellant gave dash to Tulshiram who died on the spot. Legal heirs of Tulshiram filed Application under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicle Act claiming a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation. 3 The trial Court considering the evidence on record, directed the Appellant herein / original Respondent No.1  The Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Nanded to pay Rs.82,000/- to the Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 inclusive of no fault liability with interest at the rate of 12% per annum on unpaid amount from the date of filing of Claim Petition till realization of the amount. 4. Learned counsel for the Appellant / original Respondent No.1 pleaded that the trial Court wrongly interpreted the provisions of Section 4(3) of the Maharashtra Requisitioning (and Control) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1965 and, came to erroneous conclusion that Appellant/ Respondent No.1 is liable to pay the compensation to the original claimants. He submitted that as per Motor Vehicle Act, the registered owner is responsible to pay the compensation. In the present case Tanker No. M.T.G. 2226 was owned by State Government, Irrigation Department. Learned counsel for the Appellant further submitted that in view of registration of the said Tanker in the name of State Government, the Tribunal erred in coming to the conclusion that Appellant is liable to pay the compensation. 4 5. On the other hand, learned A.G.P. Appearing on behalf of Respondent Nos. 6 and 7 submitted that the day on which the accident took place, Tanker was in possession and use of Appellant for water supply scheme and therefore the Appellants are only responsible to pay the compensation. 6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent No.5 states that in any case his client is not responsible to pay the compensation because at that time he was working with Appellant as a cleaner and on the date of accident, he was on duty. Therefore, in any case either the Appellant or State Government is liable to pay the compensation. 7. In view of the above mentioned submissions of learned counsel for the parties, a point arise before me to decide: Whether the Appellant / original Respondent No.1 who was in possession and custody of the water Tanker on the date of accident, is responsible to make the payment of compensation though the water Tanker was registered in the name of Irrigation 5 Department of State Government? 8.With the assistance of learned counsel for the parties, I have gone through the  Record and Proceedings. It is to be noted that vehicle water Tanker was owned by Irrigation Department of State Government but at the relevant time it was given for the use under requisition by the order of the Collector, Nanded, to Zilla Parishad, Naded. The said water Tanker handed over by Collector, Nanded to the Appellant Zilla Parishad for supply of water to the villagers. Therefore, it is clear that on the date of accident i.e. 9th June, 1987 the vehicle was in custody, possession and use of the Appellant. 9. Section 4 of the Maharashtra Requisitioning (and Control) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1965 reads as under: 4. Release from requisitioning. (1)The State Government may at any time release from requisitioning any motor vehicle requisitioned under 6 the last preceding section and shall, as far as possible restore the vehicle in as good a condition as it was when possession thereof was taken, subject only to the changes caused by reasonable wear and tear. (2) When any vehicle is to be released from requisitioning, the State Government may, after such inquiry, if any, as it may in any case consider necessary to make or cause to be made, specify by order in writing to whom possession of the vehicle shall be given. (3) The delivery of possession of the requisitioned vehicle to the persons specified in the order made under sub section (2) shall be a full discharge of the State Government from all liabilities in respect of such property and the requisitioning shall be at the end. . Provided that, nothing in this section shall prejudice any rights in respect of the property which any other person 7 may be entitled to by due process of law to enforce against the person to whom the possession of the property is so delivered. (4)Where the person to whom the possession of any requisitioned vehicle is to be given cannot be found and has no legal agent or other person empowered to accept delivery on his behalf, the State Government shall cause a notice declaring that the vehicle is released from requisitioning to be published in the official Gazette. (5) When such notice is published in the official Gazette, the vehicle specified therein shall cease to be subject to requisitioning on and from the date of such publication and be deemed to have been delivered to the person entitled to possession thereof and the State Government shall not be liable for any compensation or other claims in respect of the property for any period 8 after such date. 10.It is clear from bare reading of Section 4 (3) of the said Act that the person in whose favour the vehicle allotted, shall be responsible for all liabilities in respect of the said vehicle. It is clear from Section 4 (3) of the said Act that the State Government is fully discharged from all liabilities. Appellants in their written statement dated 15th December, 1994 at Exhibit 60 admitted in Para 5 that As per the order of Collector, Nanded, Tanker was handed over to Respondent No.1 (Zilla Parishad, Nanded) for supplying water to village Somur, Tq-Deglur. Therefore, considering the provisions of Section 4 of the said Act, I do not find any reason to interfere in the Judgment and award passed by the Tribunal. The Tribunal also, after considering Section 4 of the said Act, held that Appellant/ original Respondent No.1  Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Nanded is liable to pay the compensation to Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 / original claimants. 11. In view of these facts I hold that Appellant / original Respondent No. 1 is also responsible to 9 pay the compensation to the original claimants and therefore, it is not necessary to interfere in the Judgment and award passed by the District Judge as Ex-Officio Member of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Nanded dated 4th February, 1995 in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 65 of 1987;. First Appeal is therefore, dismissed with no order as to the costs. [K.K. TATED] JUDGE. asb/o/JUN09/fa302.95