Full Judgment Text
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL No.5932 OF 2019
(Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No.670 of 2019)
Rupa Roy ….Appellant(s)
VERSUS
The New India Assurance Company
Ltd. & Anr. ….Respondent(s)
J U D G M E N T
Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal is directed against the final
judgment and order dated 04.08.2015 passed by
the High Court at Calcutta in F.M.A. No.647 of 2009
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
ASHOK RAJ SINGH
Date: 2019.07.29
18:00:08 IST
Reason:
whereby the High Court dismissed the appeal filed
1
by the appellant herein and affirmed the award
dated 16.02.2008 passed by the 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 disposal of this appeal, which involves a
short point.
4. The appellant is the claimant (applicant) and
the respondents are the nonapplicants in the claim
petition filed before the Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal”)
out of which this appeal arises.
5. On 19.07.2004, when the appellant with her
husband and minor son – Sourangshu was going
towards Gachha Bazar Bus Stoppage on a rickshaw
van, one Matador van bearing No. WB 57/5270
came on a high speed from opposite side and
dashed the rickshaw van as a result of which all the
2
occupants of the rickshaw van suffered serious
injuries.
6. The appellant's minor sonSourangshu aged
around 10 years, who was travelling with the
appellanthis mother, suffered multiple injuries on
his body. He was taken to the hospital where he
received the treatment for a long time. After
treatment, it was certified that he was
Orthopedically disabled with posttraumatic
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.
7. This gave rise to filing of the claim petition by
the appellant against the respondents, i.e.,
owner/driver and insurer of the offending vehicle
under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act,
1988(hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) claiming
3
compensation for the disabilities caused to her son
due to injuries.
8. It was inter alia alleged that the accident
occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the
driver/owner of the offending vehiclerespondent
No. 2 and that it was insured with respondent No. 1
on the date of accident. It was alleged that due to
permanent disability suffered by the appellant's
son, the appellant is entitled to claim suitable
compensation for him.
9. The respondents contested the claim. By
award dated 16.02.2008, the Tribunal partly
allowed the appellant's claim petition and awarded a
compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/ to the appellant.
The appellant felt aggrieved and filed an appeal
before the High Court at Calcutta. By impugned
order, the High Court dismissed the appeal which
gives rise to filing of the present appeal by way of
4
special leave by the appellant (claimant) in this
Court.
10. Heard Mr. Rauf Rahim, learned counsel for the
appellant and Mr. A. Jain, learned counsel for
respondent No.1.
11. Having heard the learned counsel for the
parties and on perusal of the record of the case, we
are inclined to allow the appeal and while setting
aside the impugned order modify the award passed
by the Tribunal and accordingly enhance the
compensation to the extent indicated hereinbelow in
favour of the appellant.
12. On perusal of the impugned order, we find that
the High Court did not assign any reason for
dismissal of the appellant’s appeal, which reads as
under:
“We have gone through the award so
pronounced by the Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal and we are of the opinion that there
5
is no perversity or illegality in the award so
passed by the Tribunal.”
13. In our view, the High court committed
jurisdictional error in dismissing the appeal because
it failed to appreciate the evidence and also failed to
assign any reason for the dismissal of the appeal. In
the absence of any discussion and the reasoning,
we are at a loss to know as to what persuaded the
High Court to dismiss the appeal.
14. An appeal filed under Section 173 of the Act is
akin to Section 96 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
(hereinafter referred to as “the Code”). The scope of
the appellate powers under Section 173 of the Act,
how such powers should be exercised while hearing
the appeal and why it is necessary for the Courts to
assign the reasons for reaching to the conclusion
while passing any order/judgment was examined by
this Court in the case of Uttar Pradesh State Road
6
Transport Corporation vs. Mamta & Ors., (2016) 4
SCC 172, G. Saraswathi & Ors. vs. Rathinammal
(2018) 3 SCC 340 and
& Ors., Central Board of
Trustees vs. Indore Composite Pvt. Ltd., (2018) 8
SCC 443.
15. In our view, the High Court should have taken
note of the law laid down by this Court in the
aforementioned cases and should have decided the
appeal accordingly. Since the High Court failed to
do so and hence we are required to examine the
case in the light of the evidence adduced by the
appellant on the question as to the nature of
injuries sustained by the victimminor son of the
appellant and the extent of permanent disability
suffered by him on account of the injuries caused to
him.
7
16. Therefore, the only question, which is involved
in this appeal, is whether the Courts below were
justified in awarding a sum of Rs.2,00,000/ to the
appellant(claimant) for the injuries sustained by her
minor son. So far as the other issue is concerned,
such as liability of the Insurance Company, the
same need not be considered because the Insurance
Company has not questioned it.
17. On perusal of the evidence, we find that the
victim, i.e., minor son of the appellant has suffered
permanent disability in his body to the extent of
70%. The doctor has proved it. The minor was aged
about 10 years at the time of accident. There is no
evidence adduced in rebuttal by the respondents on
this issue.
18. Taking into consideration the age of the victim,
the extent of disability suffered by the victim in his
early age, the medical treatment so far taken and to
8
be taken in future to remedy the ailment, mental
pain and suffering caused to the victim due to the
injuries and lastly, the loss caused, the award of
Rs.2,00,000/ by the Tribunal seems to be on lower
side and the same deserves to be enhanced
suitably.
19. We accordingly consider it just and proper to
award a lump sum amount of Rs10,00,000/ to the
appellant she being the mother of victim. It will
enable her to take care of her son and for his
upbringing and 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 in
future. While awarding the lump sum amount, we
have taken into account all the aforementioned
factors, which are relevant.
20. The sum awarded by this Court
(Rs.10,00,000/) would carry 6% interest which will
9
be payable to the appellant from the date of the
impugned order of the High Court. Respondent
No. 1 would pay the awarded sum to the appellant
after adjusting Rs.2,00,000/ together with interest
awarded by the Tribunal, if already paid to the
appellant. Let the amount be worked out and be
paid as awarded by this Court within 3 months.
21. The appeal is accordingly allowed. The
impugned order is set aside. Counsel fees
Rs.10,000/ payable by respondent No.1 to the
appellant.
.………...................................J.
[ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE]
…...……..................................J.
[INDU MALHOTRA]
New Delhi;
July 29, 2019
10