1. Who is a "person aggrieved" within the meaning of Section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act (for short the Act). Is he any Tom, Dick and Harry or whose interests stand prejudicially effectee by the award ? What should be his qualifications to get him this status. An answer to these questions will decide the fate of this appeal. Section 110-D of the Act reads thus :-

"Appeal:-(1) Subject to the provisions of Sub-section (2), any person aggrieved by an award of claims Tribunal may within 90 days from the date of award prefer an appeal to the High Court."

As it is, the expression "person aggrieved" defies an exact definition. His meaning varies with the context of statutes wherein it occurs and depends upon diverse and varied factors. This is not to suggest that it admits of no fair interpretation, but to underscore the elusiveness of the concept which has constrained the courts to define it variedly, sometimes liberally and at other times rigidly depending upon the circumstances of the case. Taking the word as it is understood in common parlance a "person aggrieved" should include a person whose interests are prejudicially effected by a decision a person who has a genuine grievance that the decision has adversely hit him, denied him something which was otherwise legally due to him and has imposed some burden on him to be discharged.

2. These broad tests have been deduced by the courts from time to time depending upon the nature of the statute in the context of which the expression is required to be interpreted. In Buxton vs Minister of Housing (1961) I.QB 278, the words were given a restricted meaning and it was held that the expression person aggrieved" meant a person who has suffered a legal grievance and against whom a decision has been pronounced which has wrongfully deprived him of something or wrongfully refused him something or wrongfully effected his title to something. In King vs Middlex Justices it was further clarified that the person should be immediately aggrieved and not consequently aggrieved. A nominal or speculative adverse effect on the right or interest of a person is insufficient.

3. The legal position on the point has proceeded, by and large,

on similar lines in our country also. In this regard it should suffice to briefly extract the ratio of the judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in AIR 1976 SC: 578:

The expression denotes an elastic and to an extent an elusive concept. It can™t be confined within the bounds of a rigid, exact and a comprehensive definition. At best its features can be described in a broad tentative manner. Its scope and meaning, depends upon diverse and variable factors such as content and intent of the statute, the nature and extent of the prejudice and injury suffered by him."

Following this decision, Full Bench of this court in United Fire and General Insurance Company vs Laxmi Shori (AIR 1982 J&K: 105) interpreted the expression as used in Motor Vehicles Act and observed as under :-

"Expressing aggrieved party" contains the inherent limitations in the matter of filing of an appeal. The expression in the context of Section 110-D has to be interpreted and understood in common parlance. It is not possible to give an exhaustive definition of the expression which has to be interpreted in the context in which it appears in a particular statute. As a general principle, it has to be held by the court that a person who feels disappointed with the result of a case is not necessarily a "person aggrieved" to be so classified, he must be disappointed of a benefit which he would have received if the order had gone other way. The order must cause him the legal grievance by wrongfully depriving him of something. If he was not entitled to relief in first place, he cannot be aggrieved if the relief was denied to, him. But if he was entitled and the same has been denied to him, he would be a "person aggrieved". Thus, a party would be regarded as an "aggrieved Party" for the purpose of Section 110-D wher

Click Here to Read the rest of this document