Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – ss. 166 and 173 – Enhancement of compensation – Appellant and her minor son were travelling in a rickshaw van, one Matador van came on high speed from opposite side and dashed the rickshaw van – All the occupants of the rickshaw van sustained serious injuries – Appellant’s minor son suffered permanent disability in his body to the extent of 70% – Appellant filed claim petition u/s. 166 of the Act – Tribunal partly allowed the appellant’s claim and awarded compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- – Appeal was dismissed by the High Court – On appeal held: High Court committed jurisdictional error in dismissing the appeal because it failed to appreciate the evidence and also failed to assign any reason for the dismissal of the appeal – Minor son of the appellant suffered permanent disability in his body to the extent of 70% and the same was proved by the doctor – Taking into consideration the age of the victim, the extent of disability suffered, the medical treatment so far taken, mental pain and suffering caused to the victim, the award of Rs.2,00,000/- enhanced to Rs.10,00,000/- – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – s. 96. Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. The High court committed jurisdictional error in dismissing the appeal because it failed to appreciate the evidence and also failed to assign any reason for the dismissal of the appeal. An appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is akin to Section 96 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The scope of the appellate powers under Section 173 of the Act, how such powers should be exercised while hearing the appeal and why it is necessary for the Courts to assign the reasons for reaching to the conclusion while passing any order/judgment was examined by Supreme Court in various cases. [Paras 13, 14] [331-B-C]
Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation v. Mamta & Ors., (2016) 4 SCC 172 ; G. Saraswathi & Ors. v. Rathinammal & Ors. (2018) 3 SCC 340 : [2018]
2 SCR 548 ; Central Board of Trustees v. Indore Composite Pvt. Ltd., (2018) 8 SCC 443 : [2018] 7 SCR 1130 – referred to.
2. The High Court should have taken note of the law laid down by this Court in the aforementioned cases and should have decided the appeal accordingly. Since the High Court failed to do so and hence this Court is required to examine the case in the light of the evidence adduced by the appellant on the question as to the nature of injuries sustained by the victim-minor son of the appellant and the extent of permanent disability suffered by him on account of the injuries caused to him. [Para 15] [331-D]
3. On perusal of the evidence, this Court finds that the victim, i.e., minor son of the appellant has suffered permanent disability in his body to the extent of 70%. The doctor has proved it. The minor was aged about 10 years at the time of accident. There is no evidence adduced in rebuttal by the respondents on this issue. [Para 17] [331-F-G]
4. Taking into consideration the age of the victim, the extent of disability suffered by the victim in his early age, the medical treatment so far taken and to be taken in future to remedy the ailment, mental pain and suffering caused to the victim due to the injuries and lastly, the loss caused, the award of Rs.2,00,000/- by the Tribunal seems to be on lower side and the same deserves to be enhanced suitably. Accordingly, a lump sum amount of Rs. 10,00,000/- awarded to the appellant - she being the mother of victim. [Paras 18 and 19] [331-G-H; 332-A-B]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.