Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, S. ABDUL NAZEER, JJ.
Sudarsan Puhan – Appellant(s)
VERSUS
Jayanta Ku. Mohanty & Ors. – Respondent(s)
CIVIL APPEAL NOs.3798-3799 OF 2016
Decided On : 20-09-2018
(d) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Section 96 and Section 173, Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Section 173 essentially in the nature of first appeal alike Section 96 – High Court therefore obliged to decide all issues both on facts and law keeping in view requirements of Order XX Rule 4 (2) read with Order XLI Rule 31 of the Code – Instantly High Court neither setting out facts of the case of the parties in detail, nor dealing with any of the submissions urged except to mention them, nor taking note of the grounds raised by the claimant and nor making any attempt to appreciate the evidence in the light of the settled legal principles and proceeded to allow the appeal filed by reducing the compensation to Rs.20,00,000/- giving no reason therefor – Matter remanded only for considering appellant-claimant’s appeal. (Para 31, 32, 34, 35, 39)
(2001) 3 SCC 179; (2001) 4 SCC 756; (2005) 10 SCC 243; (2005) 12 SCC 303; (2010) 13 SCC 530; (2011) 12 SCC 174; (2016) 4 SCC 172; (2000) 10 SCC 198; (2004) 13 SCC 680 – Relied upon
AIR 1969 Kerala 316 – Cited with approval
Facts of the case:
This case relates to compensation in motor accident.
Finding of the Court:
High Court has not followed legal principles for disposal of first appeal.
Result: Appeal allowed, matter remanded.
JUDGMENT
Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.
1) These appeals are filed by the appellant-claimant against the final judgment and order dated 09.11.2015 passed by the High Court of Orissa at Cuttack in M.A.C.A. No.690 of 2014 and M.A.C.A. No.839 of 2014 whereby the High Court allowed the appeal filed by the Insurance Company and reduced the compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (in short ‘the Tribunal”) from Rs.24,62,065/- to Rs.20,00,000/- and in consequence dismissed the M.A.C.A. No.690 of 2014 filed by the appellant-claimant in terms of the main order passed in M.A.C.A. No.839 of 2014.
2) In order to appreciate the issue involved in these appeals, few facts need mention infra.
3) The appellant herein was the claimant before the Tribunal whereas respondent-owner of the vehicle (motorcycle) was the non-applicant No.1 and the Insurance Company was non-applicant No.2 in the appellant’s claim petition.
4) On 31.10.2012, the appellant-claimant with one Dipak Kumar Pradhan was going on a motorcycle bearing No.OR07 S 3133 from Baisinga to Baripada on National Highway 18 in the State of Orissa. The abovesaid Motorcycle met with an accident with a Mini Truck (407) wherein the appellant-claimant suffered severe injuries. The motorcycle was owned by Jayanta Kumar Mohanty (respondent No.1 in CA 3798/2016 & respondent No.2 in CA No.3799/2016) and was insured with the National Insurance Company Ltd. (respondent No.2 in CA 3798/2016 & respondent No.1 in CA 3799/2016).
5) According to the appellant-claimant, he was in the age group of 25-27 years at the time of accident and suffered the disease of “paraplegia” (injury in spinal cord) as a result of the above-said accident.
6) The appellant-claimant, therefore, filed a claim petition before the Tribunal, Mayurbhanj Baripada (Orissa) under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the MV Act”) against the respondents (owner of the motorcycle and the Insurance company) and claimed reasonable compensation for the injuries sustained by him and other statutory compensation payable under the MV Act for causing such injuries. The respondents contested the claim petition.
7) By award dated 17.05.2014, the Tribunal allowed the appellant’s claim petition in part and holding the respondents(non-applicants) liable for payment of the compensation to the appellant-claimant jointly and severely awarded a total sum of Rs.24,62,065/- with interest payable at the rate of 7% per annum under various heads.
8) The appellant-claimant and the Insurance Company both felt aggrieved by the award, filed appeals in the High Court of Orissa at Cuttack.
9) So far as M.A.C.A.No.690/2014 is concerned, it was filed by the appellant-claimant for enhancement of the amount awarded by the Tribunal whereas so far as M.A.C.A.No.839/2014 is concerned, it was filed by the Insurance Company against the award challenging therein the quantum of compensation to be on a higher side.
10) By impugned order, the High Court allowed the appeal filed by the Insurance Company (M.A.C.A.No.839/2014) in part and accordingly reduced the compensation from Rs.24,62,065/- to Rs.20,00,000/-. As a result of the main order passed in favour of the Insurance Company in their appeal, the appeal filed by the appellant-claimant (M.A.C.A. No.690/2014) seeking enhancement in the quantum of compensation was dismissed as having rendered infructuous.
11) The appellant-claimant felt aggrieved by the order of the High Court filed two appeals by way of special leave in this Court. One is filed against an order by which the claimant’s appeal for enhancement in the quantum of compensation was dismissed as having rendered infructuous and the other is filed against an order by which the Insurance Company’s appeal was partly allowed by reducing the quantum of compensation from Rs.24,62,065/- to Rs.20,00,000/-.
12) It may be mentioned that so far as the Insurance Company is concerned, they have not filed any appeal against the order of the Hig
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
