Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – s.173 – Appeal under – Appellantclaimant while going on a motorcycle met with an accident and suffered severe injuries – He filed claim petition u/s.166 of MV Act before the Tribunal against the respondents (owner of the motorcycle and the Insurance company) – Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.24,62,065/- compensation to the claimant, holding the respondents liable for payment – Both claimant and the Insurance company filed appeal before the High Court – High Court allowed the appeal filed by the Insurance company in part and reduced the compensation from Rs.24,62,065/- to Rs.20,00,000/- – Aggrieved, only claimant filed appeal – Held: An appeal before the High Court u/s.173 of MV Act is essentially in the nature of first appeal like s.96 of CPC and, therefore, the High Court is equally under legal obligation to decide all issues arising in the case both on facts and law after appreciating the entire evidence – In instant case, it was the duty of the High Court to decide the appeals keeping in view the requirements of Or.XX, r.4(2) r/w Or.XLI, r.31 of CPC which requires that judgment/order shall contain a concise statement of the case, points for determination, decisions thereon and the reasons – However, the High Court neither set out the facts of the case of the parties in detail, nor dealt with any of the submissions urged by them, nor took note of the grounds raised by the claimant and nor made any attempt to appreciate the evidence in the light of the settled legal principles applicable to the issues arising in the present case – Thus, matter remanded to the High Court to examine the question as to whether any case for further enhancement in the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal made out or not and, if so, on what grounds – Furthermore, as the Insurance Company chose not to file any appeal against the impugned order of the High Court, therefore, claimant alone will have right to prosecute his appeal on merits after remand of the case to the High Court – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 –s.96, Or.XX, r.4(2) r/w Or.XLI, r.31.
Partly allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. The order of the High Court would show that the High Court neither set out the facts of the case of the parties in detail, nor dealt with any of the submissions urged except to mention them, nor took note of the grounds raised by the claimant and nor made any attempt to appreciate the evidence in the light of the settled legal principles applicable to the issues arising in the case and proceeded to allow the appeal filed by the Insurance Company and reduced the compensation from Rs.24,62,065/- to Rs.20,00,000/-. [Para 34][1111-D-E]
2. The High Court only observed “Considering the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties” and “I feel that compensation should have been awarded as Rs.20,00,000/- and not Rs.24,62,065/-”. No reasons were given by the High Court as to why the amount of compensation should be reduced from Rs.24,62,065/- to Rs.20,00,000/- and why it cannot be enhanced. Since the appellant-claimant had also filed appeal for enhancement of the compensation, the entire controversy was again open for decision before the High Court at the instance of the claimant and Insurance Company. It was, therefore, necessary for the High Court to assign the reasons for not granting enhancement of compensation and/or its reduction. [Para 35] [1111-F-G]
3. The Insurance Company did not choose to file any special leave to appeal in this Court against the impugned order of the High Court. The effect of non-filing of appeal is that the Insurance Company has in principle accepted the High Court’s order. [Para 36] [1111-H; 1112-A]
4. In this view of the matter, the appellant-claimant alone will have a right to prosecute his appeal on merits before the High Court after remand of the case by this Court wherein the High Court will examine the question as to whether any case for further enhancement in the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is made out or not and, if so, on what grounds. [Para 38] [1112-D]
B. V Nagesh & Anr. v. H.V. Sreenivasa Murthy (2010)
13 SCC 530 : [2010] 11 SCR 784 ; Santosh Hazari v. Purushottam Tiwari (Deceased) by L.Rs. (2001) 3 SCC 179: [2001] 1 SCR 948 ; H.K.N. Swami v. Irshad Basith (2005) 10 SCC 243 – relied on.
Madhukar & Ors. v. Sangram & Ors. (2001) 4 SCC
756 : [2001] 3 SCR 138 ; Jagannath v. Arulappa & Anr. (2005) 12 SCC 303 ; State Bank of India & Anr. v. Emmsons International Ltd. & Anr. (2011) 12 SCC
174 : [2011] 10 SCR 436 ; Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation v. Mamta & Ors. (2016) 4 SCC
172 ; National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Naresh Kumar & Ors. (2000) 10 SCC 198 ; State of Punjab & Anr. v. Navdeep Kuur & Ors. (2004) 13 SCC 680
– referred to.
Kurian Chacko v. Varkey Ouseph AIR 1969 Kerala
316 – referred to.
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.