An appellate court can enhance compensation awarded by the Tribunal without a substantive appeal or cross-objections by the claimant only in extreme situations, and only where the award of the Tribunal is manifestly unjust.

G.S. PATEL, J.

1. At my request, Mr. D.S. Joshi has rendered assistance as amicus. The matter raises a question of some importance, one that frequently arises in First Appeals under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (“the MV Act”). Shortly put, the question is this: when an opponent to the original claim appeals, questioning the quantum of compensation awarded, absent either an appeal for enhancement or cross-objections by the original claimant, can an appellate court directly order enhancement of the compensation? If the mandate under the MV Act is to award compensation that is ‘just’ can this be done as a matter of course without the appellate court having before it a claimant’s substantive appeal (or cross-objections) seeking enhancement? Mr. Ketan Joshi for the present appellant say this cannot be done. The claimant must prefer a substantive appeal or at least file cross-objections. Mr. Waradkar for 1st Respondent — the original claimant before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Satara — would have it that it is always within the power of the appellate court to render substantial justice and to enhance the compensation to a level it considers just and it matters not whether the claimant has or has not filed his or her own appeal or cross-objections.

2. On hearing the rival submissions and the submissions by Mr. D.S. Joshi as amicus and on considering the authorities placed, I have concluded, for reasons that follow, that while an appellate court cannot as a matter of course or routine order an enhancement without having before it a substantive appeal or at cross-objections, it can do so only in extreme situations, and only where the award of the Tribunal is manifestly unjust. These cases are exceptions to the general rule, and the exceptional circumstances must be fully explained. I have found Mr. Waradkar’s submission to be too overbroad and without sufficient limiting parameters, likely to result, if accepted, in wholly unintended consequences. Equally, I believe the submission that an appellate court can never step in to right a palpable wrong to be far too rigid, and just as likely to result in a perpetuation of injustice. The correct position is in between and it requires a careful balancing of competing equities. There can be no absolute acceptance of the submissions of either the Appellant or the 1st Respondent — both represent extreme positions. The middle ground is where the answer lies, thus: that in the normal course, an appellate court will not when considering a challenge by an original opponent to the compensation awarded grant an enhancement to the original claimant without the claimant filing a substantive appeal or at least cross objections seeking that enhancement. This is the general rule. The exception is only where the appellate court is satisfied that the tribunal’s decision is wholly erroneous and has resulted in the award of compensation that is manifestly unjust; that is to say, there is such a facial failure to award just compensation that nothing further is necessary. The limitation on appellate power is not just a self-imposed discipline; it is mandated by statute. The relaxation of that limitation is a result of a harmonious construction of substantive and procedural law. Further, this limitation is to be carefully separated from the power of the appellate court to correct a purely computational or similar error — for instance, where an incorrect multiplier has been used, or a wholly incorrect deduction made. The discussion before me does not relate to such situations. It is focussed on the limitations of the discretionary power of an appeal court.

3. First, to the facts of the case. The judgment in question is dated 12th April 2013. It arose out of an accident injury claim filed by the 1st Respondent, Rajani Suresh Bhore. She claimed Rs. 50 lakhs on account of these injuries. She said