IMPORTANT POINT
Appeal u/s 173, M.V.Act is akin to section 96 CPC. High Court has to decide all issues of fact and law.

JUDGMENT :

Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.

1) Leave granted.

2) This appeal is filed by the defendant/appellant-Corporation against the judgment/order dated 28.05.2014 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Allahabad in First Appeal from Order No. 1681 of 2014, which in turn, arises out of an Award dated 18.02.2014 passed by the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal/District Judge (in short ‘the Tribunal’), Hathras, Uttar Pradesh in MACT No. 131 of 2010.

3) In order to appreciate the short issue involved in this appeal, it is necessary to state a few relevant facts:

4) The respondents-Claimant(Plaintiffs) filed a Claim Petition under Sections 140 and 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (in short ‘the M.V. Act’) against the appellant-Corporation before the Tribunal, Hathras claiming compensation to the tune of Rs.36,35,880/- for the death of one Raj Kumar Gautam, who died in a vehicular accident. According to the respondents, on 22.09.2010, Raj Kumar Gautam-the deceased while going on his Motor Cycle bearing No. UP-86F-9224 on Hathras-Agra road near a place called ‘Ghas Mandi’ was hit by the appellant’s bus bearing Registration No. UP-14-AB-9038.

5) It was, inter alia, alleged that the offending bus was coming on wrong side with high speed and hit the motor cycle, which was being driven by the deceased, on the right side of the road. The deceased who was aged 49 years sustained extensive injuries and later succumbed to the injuries which gave rise to the filing of the claim petition by his legal representatives (respondents herein) claiming compensation for the untimely death of Raj Kumar Gautam. The respondents also pleaded the details regarding loss of income and other particulars necessary for claiming compensation in the claim petition.

6) The appellant-Corporation filed written statement and contested the claim petition. One of the grounds taken in the defence was that of contributory negligence on the part of the deceased also while driving the motor cycle which resulted in the accident.

7) The Tribunal, by award dated 18.02.2014, partly allowed the claim petition and awarded a total sum of Rs.24,73,252/- along with interest @ 6% p.a. from date of filing till its realization to the respondents.

8) Challenging the said Award, the appellant-Corporation filed an appeal before the High Court. By impugned order dated 28.05.2014, the Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the award of the Tribunal.

9) Against the said order, the appellant-Corporation has filed this appeal by way of special leave.

10) Learned Counsel for the appellant-Corporation while assailing the legality and correctness of the impugned order contended that the High Court without adverting to all the factual details and grounds raised in the appeal, disposed of the appeal in a cryptic manner. According to learned counsel, the High Court neither set out the facts, nor dealt with any issue, nor appreciated the ocular and documentary evidence in its proper perspective, nor examined the legal principles applicable to the issues arising in the case and nor rendered its findings on contentious issues decided by the Tribunal though urged by the appellant in support of the appeal.

11) Learned counsel further contended that it was the duty of the High Court exercising its first appellate powers under Section 173 of the M.V. Act to have dealt with all the submissions urged by the appellant-Corporation and after appreciating the entire evidence should have come to its own conclusion one way or the other keeping in view the legal principles governing the issues. It was urged that since it was not done by the High Court, a jurisdictional error is committed by the High Court which renders the impugned judgment legally unsustainable. Lastly, the learned counsel urged that if his arguments are accepted, the remand of the case to the High Court to decide the appeal afresh on merits is inevitable.

12) Learned counsel for the respondents, however, supported the impugned