CHIEF SECRETARY Vs. SHERIFF

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this appeal under Section 12 of the Karnataka Contract Carriages (Acquisition) Act, 1976 (for short 'the Act'), by the State of Karnataka (for short 'the State'), the sustain-ability of the award of the Mandya District Judge, who was appointed as an Arbitrator under the Act, determining the amount to be paid for a contract carriage acquired under the Act, has been questioned.

(2.) A contract carriage bearing Registration No. MYQ 1227 belonging to the respondent (the operator), was acquired under the Act, by the State on 30-1-1976. As the amount payable by the State to the operator for the contract carriage so acquired, was not agreed upon between them, the State Government, by its order No. HD. 16. TMI. 84 dated 22-3-1984. appointed the District Judge, Mandya, as the arbitrator for determining the amount of compensation payable respecting the said contract carriage. Thereupon, the District Judge, Mandya, accepted his appointment as an arbitrator and initiated proceedings relating thereto in C.C.A. No. 5/84. In that procesding, the operator was treated as the petitioner and the State Government represented by its Chief Secretary, the Deputy Commissioner, Mandya, and the Regional Transport Officer, Mandya, were treated as respondents. In his claim statement, the petitioner claimed a sum of Rs. 80.000/and odd, as amount payable by the State for the contract carriage acquired. On the other hand, in their objection statement, respondents 1 to 3 took the stand that it is not the State which is liable to pay an amount to the petitioner for his contract carriage acquired, but it is the petitioner who is liable to pay a sum of Rs. 19,477-33 to the State therefor. On receipt of these statements, the arbitrator allowed the parties to the case to adduce evidence supporting their rival claims and heard arguments of their learned Counsel. He has, thereafter, made an award determining the amount payable for the contract carriage acquired, as Rs. 56.000/-. He has added to that amount, a sum of Rs. 11,600/- alleged to be payable for the unexpired period of the permit of the acquired contract carriage and the sum of Rs. 1.500/- alleged to be payable for the insurance policy of that contract carriage. But, out of the total amount held to be payable for the contract carriage acquired, he has deducted a sum of Rs. 10.000/-which had been received by the operator and a sum of Rs. 7,374-20, the tax due to the State on the contract carriage. The balance amount is made payable to the operator together with interest at 6% per annum from the date of acquisition till the date of payment and costs. It is the sustainability of this award which the State wants us to decide in this appeal.

(3.) Shri Kothavale, learned High Court Government Pleader, contended that the arbitrator's determination of the amount of Rs. 56,000/- as that payable for the contract carriage acquired, was wholly erroneous. According to him, in determining the amount payable for the contract carriage, the Arbitrator had no option but to find out the aggregate cost of the chasis as well as the body of the mini-bus before it was converted into a contract carriage, as incurred by its original purchaser before its first registration on 30-5-1966 and fix the amount payable for it on the date of its acquisition under the Act, adopting the basis of the percentage provided for in the Schedule thereto, inasmuch as it was the only method adoptable by him under Section 6(1) of the Act for determining the amount payable for a contract carriage acquired under the Act. It was his submission that the arbitrator had acted in excess of his authority in taking the acquisition cost of the contract carriage for purposes of the Act, as the price paid by the operator for the purchase of a mini-bus in the year 1974 plus the cost incurred by him for replacing that mini-bus's petrol engine with a diesel engine plus the cost incurred by him for converting that mini-bus into a contract carriage by re-building its body on 27-12-1975, minus the depreciated value of the original minibus as on 27-12 1975 and in determining the amount payable thereto on percentage basis as provided in the Schedule to the Act.