RUPA ROY versus THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD. & ANR. on 29 July 2019

[2019] 10 S.C.R. 327

RUPA ROY

v.

THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD. & ANR.

(Civil Appeal No.5932 of 2019)

JULY 29, 2019

[ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE AND INDU MALHOTRA, JJ.]

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – ss. 166 and 173 – Enhancementof compensation – Appellant and her minor son were travelling in arickshaw van, one Matador van came on high speed from oppositeside and dashed the rickshaw van – All the occupants of the rickshawvan sustained serious injuries – Appellant’s minor son sufferedpermanent disability in his body to the extent of 70% – Appellantfiled claim petition u/s. 166 of the Act – Tribunal partly allowed theappellant’s claim and awarded compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- –Appeal was dismissed by the High Court – On appeal held: HighCourt committed jurisdictional error in dismissing the appealbecause it failed to appreciate the evidence and also failed to assignany reason for the dismissal of the appeal – Minor son of theappellant suffered permanent disability in his body to the extent of70% and the same was proved by the doctor – Taking intoconsideration the age of the victim, the extent of disability suffered,the medical treatment so far taken, mental pain and suffering causedto the victim, the award of Rs.2,00,000/- enhanced toRs.10,00,000/- – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – s. 96.

Allowing the appeal, the Court

HELD: 1. The High court committed jurisdictional errorin dismissing the appeal because it failed to appreciate theevidence and also failed to assign any reason for the dismissal ofthe appeal. An appeal filed under Section 173 of the MotorVehicles Act, 1988 is akin to Section 96 of Code of Civil Procedure,1908. The scope of the appellate powers under Section 173 ofthe Act, how such powers should be exercised while hearing theappeal and why it is necessary for the Courts to assign the reasonsfor reaching to the conclusion while passing any order/judgmentwas examined by Supreme Court in various cases. [Paras 13, 14][331-B-C]

327

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

328SUPREME COURT REPORTS

AUttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation v.Mamta & Ors.,(2016) 4 SCC 172 ;G. Saraswathi &Ors. v. Rathinammal & Ors. (2018) 3 SCC 340 : [2018]2 SCR 548 ; Central Board of Trustees v. Indore Composite Pvt. Ltd.,(2018) 8 SCC 443 : [2018] 7 SCR1130 – referred to.B

2. The High Court should have taken note of the law laiddown by this Court in the aforementioned cases and should havedecided the appeal accordingly. Since the High Court failed to doso and hence this Court is required to examine the case in thelight of the evidence adduced by the appellant on the question asCto the nature of injuries sustained by the victim-minor son of theappellant and the extent of permanent disability suffered by himon account of the injuries caused to him. [Para 15] [331-D]

3. On perusal of the evidence, this Court finds that thevictim, i.e., minor son of the appellant has suffered permanentDdisability in his body to the extent of 70%. The doctor has provedit. The minor was aged about 10 years at the time of accident.There is no evidence adduced in rebuttal by the respondents onthis issue. [Para 17] [331-F-G]

4. Taking into consideration the age of the victim, the extentEof disability suffered by the victim in his early age, the medicaltreatment so far taken and to be taken in future to remedy theailment, mental pain and suffering caused to the victim due tothe injuries and lastly, the loss caused, the award ofRs.2,00,000/- by the Tribunal seems to be on lower side and theFsame deserves to be enhanced suitably. Accordingly, a lump sumamount of Rs. 10,00,000/- awarded to the appellant - she beingthe mother of victim. [Paras 18 and 19] [331-G-H; 332-A-B]

Case Law Reference

(2016) 4 SCC 172 referred toPara 14[2018] 2 SCR 548 referred toPara 14[2018] 7 SCR 1130 referred toPara 14

G

H

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 5932of 2019

From the Judgment and Order dated 04.08.2015 of the High Courtof Calcutta in F.M.A. No. 647 of 2009

Rauf Rahim, Ms. Manisha Pandey, Advs. for the Appellant.

A. Jain, Shiv Bhalla, Rameshwar Prasad Goyal, Advs. for theRespondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J. 1. Leave granted.

2. This appeal is directed against the final judgment and orderdated 04.08.2015 passed by the High Court at Calcutta in F.M.A. No.647of 2009 whereby the High Court dismissed the appeal filed by theappellant herein and affirmed the award dated 16.02.2008 passed bythe Motor Accident Claims Tribunal & District Judge, Nadia in M.A.C.Case No.3 of 2005.

3. A few facts need to be mentioned hereinbelow for the disposalof this appeal, which involves a short point.

4. The appellant is the claimant (applicant) and the respondentsare the non-applicants in the claim petition filed before the Motor AccidentClaims Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal”) out of whichthis appeal arises.

5. On 19.07.2004, when the appellant with her husband and minorson – Sourangshu was going towards Gachha Bazar Bus Stoppage on arickshaw van, one Matador van bearing No. WB 57/5270 came on ahigh speed from opposite side and dashed the rickshaw van as a resultof which all the occupants of the rickshaw van suffered serious injuries.

6. The appellant’s minor son-Sourangshu aged around 10 years,who was travelling with the appellant-his mother, suffered multiple injurieson his body. He was taken to the hospital where he received the treatmentfor a long time. After treatment, it was certified that he was Orthopedicallydisabled with post-traumatic paraplegia and weakness in his right hand.The permanent disability in his body was diagnosed to the extent of 70%due to injuries caused to him in the accident.

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

7. This gave rise to filing of the claim petition by the appellantagainst the respondents, i.e., owner/driver and insurer of the offendingvehicle under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988(hereinafterreferred to as “the Act”) claiming compensation for the disabilities causedto her son due to injuries.

A

B8. It was inter alia alleged that the accident occurred due to rashand negligent driving of the driver/owner of the offending vehicle-respondent No. 2 and that it was insured with respondent No. 1 on thedate of accident. It was alleged that due to permanent disability sufferedby the appellant’s son, the appellant is entitled to claim suitablecompensation for him.C

9. The respondents contested the claim. By award dated16.02.2008, the Tribunal partly allowed the appellant’s claim petition andawarded a compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- to the appellant. The appellantfelt aggrieved and filed an appeal before the High Court at Calcutta. Byimpugned order, the High Court dismissed the appeal which gives rise toDfiling of the present appeal by way of special leave by the appellant(claimant) in this Court.

10. Heard Mr. Rauf Rahim, learned counsel for the appellant andMr. A. Jain, learned counsel for respondent No.1.

11. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusalof the record of the case, we are inclined to allow the appeal and whilesetting aside the impugned order modify the award passed by the Tribunaland accordingly enhance the compensation to the extent indicatedhereinbelow in favour of the appellant.

E

F12. On perusal of the impugned order, we find that the High Courtdid not assign any reason for dismissal of the appellant’s appeal, whichreads as under:

“We have gone through the award so pronounced by theMotor Accident Claims Tribunal and we are of the opinionthat there is no perversity or illegality in the award so passedGby the Tribunal.”

13. In our view, the High court committed jurisdictional error indismissing the appeal because it failed to appreciate the evidence andalso failed to assign any reason for the dismissal of the appeal. In the H

absence of any discussion and the reasoning, we are at a loss to knowas to what persuaded the High Court to dismiss the appeal.

14. An appeal filed under Section 173 of the Act is akin to Section96 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as “theCode”). The scope of the appellate powers under Section 173 of theAct, how such powers should be exercised while hearing the appeal andwhy it is necessary for the Courts to assign the reasons for reaching tothe conclusion while passing any order/judgment was examined by thisCourt in the case of Uttar Pradesh State Road TransportCorporation vs. Mamta & Ors., (2016) 4 SCC 172, G. Saraswathi& Ors. vs. Rathinammal & Ors., (2018) 3 SCC 340 and CentralBoard of Trustees vs. Indore Composite Pvt. Ltd., (2018) 8 SCC443.

15. In our view, the High Court should have taken note of the lawlaid down by this Court in the aforementioned cases and should havedecided the appeal accordingly. Since the High Court failed to do so andhence we are required to examine the case in the light of the evidenceadduced by the appellant on the question as to the nature of injuriessustained by the victim-minor son of the appellant and the extent ofpermanent disability suffered by him on account of the injuries caused tohim.

16. Therefore, the only question, which is involved in this appeal,is whether the Courts below were justified in awarding a sum ofRs.2,00,000/- to the appellant(claimant) for the injuries sustained by herminor son. So far as the other issue is concerned, such as liability of theInsurance Company, the same need not be considered because theInsurance Company has not questioned it.

17. On perusal of the evidence, we find that the victim, i.e., minorson of the appellant has suffered permanent disability in his body to theextent of 70%. The doctor has proved it. The minor was aged about 10years at the time of accident. There is no evidence adduced in rebuttalby the respondents on this issue.

18. Taking into consideration the age of the victim, the extent ofdisability suffered by the victim in his early age, the medical treatmentso far taken and to be taken in future to remedy the ailment, mental painand suffering caused to the victim due to the injuries and lastly, the loss A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

Acaused, the award of Rs.2,00,000/- by the Tribunal seems to be on lowerside and the same deserves to be enhanced suitably.

19. We accordingly consider it just and proper to award a lumpsum amount of Rs10,00,000/- to the appellant - she being the mother ofvictim. It will enable her to take care of her son and for his upbringingBand also towards the amount which the appellant and her husband has so far spent on the treatment of their son and is required to spent infuture. While awarding the lump sum amount, we have taken into accountall the aforementioned factors, which are relevant.

20. The sum awarded by this Court (Rs.10,00,000/-) would carryC6% interest which will be payable to the appellant from the date of theimpugned order of the High Court. Respondent No. 1 would pay theawarded sum to the appellant after adjusting Rs.2,00,000/- together withinterest awarded by the Tribunal, if already paid to the appellant. Let theamount be worked out and be paid as awarded by this Court within 3months.

D

21. The appeal is accordingly allowed. The impugned order is setaside. Counsel fees Rs.10,000/- payable by respondent No.1 to theappellant.

EAnkit Gyan

Appeal allowed.

F

G

H