The High Court must examine appeals on their merits; an undertaking given under pressure does not preclude rights to challenge an award substantively.

ORDER :

Rajesh Bindal, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. The appellant-Insurance Company has approached this Court impugning the order¹[MACMA No.1503 of 2025] dated 19.11.2025 passed by the High Court²[High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad] in appeal whereby the award³[MVOP No.1011 of 2021 dated 20.09.2024 ] passed by the Tribunal⁴[MACT: CUM: XI Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Courts at Hyderabad ] was upheld. Vide the aforesaid order, on account of injuries suffered by the respondent no.1, compensation of Rs. 2,72,03,416/- awarded to him was upheld. Order⁵[I.A. No.4 of 2025] dated 06.01.2026 is also under challenge vide which the review application filed by the appellant was dismissed by the High Court.

3. Briefly noticing, the facts of the case are that the respondent no.1 suffered severe injuries in a road accident, which took place on 13.02.2020. He filed a claim petition before the Tribunal seeking compensation of Rs.1,00,00,000/-. He was 22 years of age at the time of the accident. His functional disability was assessed as 100%. He was a second year student at Government ITI College at Dindi, Nalwada Distt. Accepting the claim made by the respondent no.1 that he was assisting his father in farming, his income was assessed to be Rs.25,000/- per month. While adding the amount under various heads, total compensation of Rs.2,72,03,416/- along with interest @ 6% per annum was awarded.

4. Aggrieved against the same, the appellant-Insurance Company preferred appeal before the High Court. On the other hand, the respondent no.1 filed Execution Petition⁶[Execution Petition No.183 of 2025 in MVOP No.1011 of 2021]. Attachment of the properties of the appellant by issuance of warrants under Order XXI Rule 43, 64 and 66 of C.P.C. was sought. In the execution proceedings, an undertaking was furnished by the local manager of the appellant-Insurance Company, undertaking to satisfy the award. The High Court dismissed the appeal on the basis of the said undertaking. Even the Review Application was dismissed by adopting the same reasoning.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the order passed by the Tribunal awarding compensation of Rs.2,72,03,416/- was totally perverse as the claim of the respondent no.1 was only to the tune of Rs.1,00,00,000/-. While assessing the compensation, despite the fact that the respondent no.1 was a student, his monthly income was taken as Rs.25,000/-. Further, keeping in view the functional disability of 100%, total amount was assessed as loss of income. The percentage on account of future prospects was awarded on a higher side. Additionally, compensation towards disability was granted for which there is no discussion in the award passed by the Tribunal. Even under other heads, the compensation awarded is against the settled principles.

6. The appellant had filed the appeal before the High Court impugning the award of the Tribunal. While the same was pending, Execution Petition was filed by the respondent no.1 before the Tribunal where furniture, fixtures and computers of the local office of the appellant were attached. It was under that pressure that the local manager of the company had given the undertaking before the Tribunal to comply with the award within two weeks from the date of the undertaking. The aforesaid undertaking was furnished by him on 30.10.2025. On the other side, the High Court had adjourned the appeal on 27.10.2025 to 03.11.2025. On the next date of hearing, though notice had not been issued to the respondent/claimant, however, the counsel for the claimant appeared and stated before the Court that the appellant-company had given an undertaking to satisfy the award. The matter was adjourned to 06.11.2025 to enable the counsel to produce the copy of the order. On 19.11.2025, the High Court, noticing that the undertaking had been given by the appellant before the Tribunal regarding compliance of the award, dismissed the appeal without even touching the merits of the controversy.

6.