Allahabad HC Sends Bus-Death Compensation Case Back, Says “Not Pressed” Could Not Replace Tribunal’s Duty To Decide Liability And Insurance Issues

Jamuna Devi died after being struck by a bus on 30 June 2001.

Her husband and sons sought compensation under Sections 166 and 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

The Tribunal awarded ₹1,69,500 with interest and held the accident resulted from the bus driver’s negligence.

It answered Issues 2–4—concerning the insurer’s liability and the bus’s insurance status—in the negative after recording that the Corporation’s counsel had not pressed them; it also assessed compensation under Issue 5.

The Corporation appealed, and the claimants filed a delayed cross-objection seeking enhancement.

Rules 209 and 211 of the U.P. Motor Vehicle Rules, 1998 require the Claims Tribunal to frame issues and record evidence on them; Rule 220 requires concise findings and reasons on each issue.

Under Rule 221, specified CPC provisions apply to Tribunal proceedings.

Section 168(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act requires an inquiry and an award identifying the person or persons liable, while Rule 207 requires notice to the vehicle owner and insurer.

The Tribunal’s statutory duty to determine the framed issues cannot be displaced merely by a bare statement that an issue is “not pressed”; waiver depends on the party’s conduct and circumstances and must be assessed in context.

The Court also relied on the Act’s beneficial, third-party-protection purpose.

Under Order XLI Rule 22 CPC, a cross-objection must be filed within the prescribed period or within further time allowed by the appellate court; delay may be condoned where sufficient cause is shown.

The Tribunal had framed issues arising from the pleadings but disposed of Issues 2–4 solely on counsel’s statement that they were not pressed, without examining their legal or factual consequences.

Because Rule 220 required reasoned findings on each issue, and the questions of insurance, liability and compensation were interconnected with the statutory inquiry and award, that approach was insufficient.

The Court held that the Tribunal’s omission required fresh adjudication; it did not determine the parties’ ultimate liability or the proper compensation itself.

The cross-objection was filed two years, seven months and eighteen days late, and the explanation did not amount to sufficient cause for condonation.

The Tribunal’s findings on Issues 2, 3, 4 and 5 were set aside, and the claim petition was remitted for fresh adjudication after hearing the parties.

The insurer was directed to continue as a party, and the parties were directed to appear before the Tribunal on 10 December 2026.

Amounts already released to the claimants remain subject to the fresh award.

The cross-objection was dismissed as time-barred, but that dismissal did not prevent the claimants from seeking just and adequate compensation before the Tribunal on remand.