WP(C) 1367/2008 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B D AGARWAL The petitioner’s case is that his vehicle (bus) with registration No. AMM 337 wa s requisitioned by the State of Assam on 15.08.1998 and it was placed in the Pol ice Department for transportation of trial prisoners from Mangaldoi District Jai l to the Gauhati Medical College & Hospital, Guwahati. While the vehicle was ret urning to Mangaldoi, it met with an accident at Changsari on the National Highwa y. Thereafter, the petitioner approached the respondents for paying the compensa tion for the damages. However, no compensation was paid to him. Hence, a case in the District Consumer Forum, Darrang, Mangaldoi, was filed. The said case was d ecided on 30.08.2001 and the Consumer Forum came to a finding that the petitione r would be entitled to a compensation of ‘ 1, 80,000/- against his claim for ‘ 3 ,93,700/- as repairing charge by State respondents. The Judgment of the Consume rs Forum passed in CPA No. 3 (Dm-2) of 1999, was interfered by the High Court in WP(C) No. 5902 of 2002, primarily on the ground that the District Consumers For um had no jurisdiction to entertain the claim petition. Hence, the owner of the vehicle has filed this writ petition seeking a direction to the respondents to p ay compensation of ‘ 3,93,700/-. 2. Heard Sri S Chauhan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri R Goswami, learned counsel for the United India Insurance Company (respondent No . 6). The State respondents are represented by Sri J Handique, learned Governmen t Counsel. 3. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd -Vs- Deepa Devi, reported in (2008) 1 SCC 414, has held that the requisition ing authority is the owner of the vehicle and the Insurance Company is not liabl e to pay any compensation during the period of requisition. The Apex Court has f urther held that during the requisition period, the requisitioning authority is to be considered as the owner of the vehicle and the said authority is liable to pay the compensation. This authority has been followed by this Court in the cas e of Jayanti Roy Choudhury -vs- Union of India, reported in 2010 (3) GLT 417. 4. In view of these decisions, the State of Assam was the owner of the vehicle on 15.08.1998 and it will be liable to pay the compensation to the w rit petitioner. 5. There is no dispute about taking the vehicle of the writ petitio ner for 2 (two) days nor is there any dispute about the accident of the vehicle. In the affidavit submitted by the Superintendent of Police, Darrang the fact of accident of the vehicle has been admitted. 6. With regard to the assessment of the compensation, there is no a verment in the affidavit of the State respondents. At the same time, the amount of damages has already been assessed by the District Consumer Forum, Darrang, Ma ngaldoi. The assessment was made during the year 2001 and the accident took plac e in the year 1998. Even for a moment, if it is presumed that the amount of comp ensation assessed by the District Consumer Forum is on the higher side, by this time, the principal amount would be much higher. Although the District Forum had awarded interest @ 9% per annum, I am not persuaded to maintain the interest am ount on the ground that the petitioner himself had purchased the vehicle at ‘ 2, 75,000/-. There is no indication in the Judgment of the District Forum as to whe n the vehicle was purchased. However, during the course of hearing, Sri Chauhan submitted that it was a 1984 Model. In this way, the vehicle was 15 years old an d the book-value of the bus must have come down even below ‘ 2,00,000/- on the d ay of the accident. 7. For the foregoing reasons, the State of Assam is directed to pay the compensation of ‘ 1, 80,000/- to the writ petitioner within a period of 2 ( two) months from the date of production of the certified copy of this order, fai ling which, the amount shall carry interest @ 9 % per annum from today. 8. With the aforesaid observations and directions, this writ petiti on stands disposed of.