R. K. Manisana, J.— This is an appeal from an award made on 23.12.81 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Meghalaya in MAC Case No. 18 of 1975. 2. On 28.1.68, on account of negligence of the driver of Truck No. ASX 1750 belonging to the Assam and Meghalaya States Road Transport Corporation, the truck collied with a jeep bearing registration mark ASA 5263 by which Smt. Mrinalini Paul was travelling. In that accident radius and ulna of Smt Mrinalini Paul were broken. The Tribunal made an award of Rs. 50,000/-. Being aggrieved by the award, the Assam State Transport Corporation has filed this appeal. 3. The only question which arises for consideration in this appeal is whether the liability would devolve on the Assam State Transport Corporation or on the Meghalaya State Transport Corporation. 4. Mr. P.C. Deka, the learned counsel for the appellant, has submitted that the liability would devolve on the Meghalaya State Transport Corporation and not on the Assam State Transport Corporation. In support of his contention, he has referred us to a decision of this Court reported as State of Assam vs. Banti Baruah, 1978 ACJ 412 (DB). 5. The North Eastern Areas (Re-organisation) Act of 1971; for short 'the Act' came into force on and from 21.1.72. Under the Act, a new State known ss the State of Meghalaya was formed out of the then territories of the State of Assam, and there are provisions with respect to transfer of assets and liabilities to the State of Meghalaya. Banti Baruah's case was in connection with liability of State of Meghalaya, viz the Government of Meghalaya. The present is a case of liability of Corporation. In our judgment, the expression "Government" does not include statutory Corpo­ration in the context. Therefore, Banti's case (1978 ACJ 412) does not help us. Part VII of the Act relates to Statutory Corporations. Banti Baruah's case was in connection with liability of State of Meghalaya, viz the Government of Meghalaya. The present is a case of liability of Corporation. In our judgment, the expression "Government" does not include statutory Corpo­ration in the context. Therefore, Banti's case (1978 ACJ 412) does not help us. Part VII of the Act relates to Statutory Corporations. Subjection (1) of section 56 of the Act runs: "Save as otherwise expressly provided by the foregoing provisions of this Part, where any body corporate constituted under a Central Act, State Act or Provincial Act for the existing State of Assam or any part thereof has, by virtue of the provisions of Part II, becomes an inter State body corporate, then, the body corporate shall, on and from the appointed day, continue to function and operate in those areas in respect of which it was functioning and operating immediately before that day, subject to such directions as may from time to time be issued by the Central Government, until other provision is made by law in respect of the said body corporate." 6. The Central Government has, in exercise of the powers conferred by section 47 A of the Road Transport Corporation Act, 1950 read with sub­section (1) of section 56 of the Act, made an Order called "the Assam and Meghalaya States Road Transport Corporation (Re-organisation) Order,1976" for short 'the Order'. The Order came into force on and from 1.6.76. Mr. P.C, Deka, the learned counsel for the appellant has drawn our attention to para 12 of the Order and has submitted that the liability shall not devolve on the Assam State Transport Corporation. Para 12 of the Order runs: "Where immediately before the appointed day, the existing Corpo­ration is a party to any legal proceedings with respect to any property, rights or liabilities transferred to any successor authority, as from the appointed day, the latter shall be deemed to be substituted for the existing Corporation as a party to these proceedings or added as a new party thereto, as the case may be, and the proceedings may continue accordingly." (emphasis added) 7. The expression "existing Corporation" is defined in para 2(d) of the Order to mean the Assam and Meghalaya 'States Road Transport Corporation established under the Road Transport Corporation Act, 1950 and functioning and operating immediately before 1.6.76. The expression "existing Corporation" is defined in para 2(d) of the Order to mean the Assam and Meghalaya 'States Road Transport Corporation established under the Road Transport Corporation Act, 1950 and functioning and operating immediately before 1.6.76. Under para 2(g) of the Order, " 'successor authorities' means in relation to the existing corporation the re-constituted Corporation and the Government of Megha­laya". Para 2(f) of the Order provides that "re-constituted Corporation" means the existing Corporation as re-constituted under paragraph 3 of the Order. Para 3(1) provides- "Save as otherwise provided in Part V of this Order, as from the appointed day, the existing Corporation shall cease to function in the territories of the State of Meghalaya and, as from the appointed day, the existing Corporation shall be deemed to have been re-constituted by the Government of Assam under the Act." 8. It appears from the records that after re-constituting the Assam and Meghalaya States Transport Corporation under para 3, it is now know as the Assam State Transport Corporation, for short the 'ASTC'. Therefore, the successor authorities in relation to the Assam and Meghalaya States Road Transport Corporation are the ASTC and the Government of Meghalaya. It is stated at the bar that a new Corporation has been established by the Government of Meghalaya known as the Meghalaya State Transport Corporation, for short the "MSTC". The Order is in respect of assets, liabilities, route permits for vehicles, rights and liabilities under contracts and residuary assets and liabilities between the re-constituted Corporation (now ASTC) and the Government of Meghalaya. 9. Para 12 relates to proceedings with respect to any property, rights or liabilities transferred to the ASTC and the Government of Meghalaya. It does not relate to the liability in respect of the actionable wrong. Therefore, para 12 is not relevant. We are of the view that para 13(1) of the Order will be relevant. Para 13 (1) reads s "13. It does not relate to the liability in respect of the actionable wrong. Therefore, para 12 is not relevant. We are of the view that para 13(1) of the Order will be relevant. Para 13 (1) reads s "13. Residuary assets and liabilities : (1) All liabilities prior to the 31st March, 1970 and relating to transa­ctions prior to that day but not included in the balance sheet on account of income tax, passenger tax and goods tax or any other tax or on account of suits having arising or which may arise or are pending in any Court or any claim under adjudication or claims which may arise relating to accidents or any other claims preferred or which may be preferred against the existing Corporation and not specifically provided for in this Order shall be divided as also refunds made between the re-constituted Corporation and the Government of Meghalaya in the prescribed ratio." (emphasis added) Para 13(1) indicates that all the liabilities prior to 31.3.70 and relating to transactions prior to 31.3.70 but not included in the balance sheet on account of any claim under adjudication or claim which may arise relating to accidents against the Assam and Meghalaya States Road Trans­port Corporation and not specifically provided for in the Order shall be divided between tfte ASTC and the Government of Meghalaya in the pres­cribed ratio. Prescribed ratio ;s defined in para 2 (e) of the Order. Under para 2 (e) 'prescribed ratio' in relation to ASTC and the Government of 10: 1 Meghalaya means the ratio of 10 :1. The present claim was made on 24.2.68, that is to say - before 31.3.70, against the then Assam and Meghalaya States Road Transport Corporation and the claim was pending or was actionable claim has not been specifically provided for in the Order. What has been provided in the Order has already been stated above. In the absence of the material, it is presumed that it was not included in the balance sheet. In that view of the matter, para 13 (1) shall be attracted and, therefore, the award shall be divided between the ASTC and the Government of Meghalaya in the ratio of 10:1. 10. In the absence of the material, it is presumed that it was not included in the balance sheet. In that view of the matter, para 13 (1) shall be attracted and, therefore, the award shall be divided between the ASTC and the Government of Meghalaya in the ratio of 10:1. 10. For the foregoing reasons, it is ordered and directed that the award of Rs.50.000/- (Rupees fifty thousand) shall be paid by the Assam State Transport Corporation and the Government of Meghalaya or the MSTC, as the case may be, in the ratio of 10 : 1. If the award has not been paid, it shall be paid within three (3) months from today; and if the award has been paid by any of them in excess of the prescribed, ratio, there shall be refunds. With the above observation and direction, the appeal is partly Allowed No costs.