Case: Tusi and Ors Vs. Divisional Manager, National Insurance Company Ltd. and Ors

1. Leave granted.2. Heard Mr. Hitendra Nath Rath, learned Counsel for the Petitioner and Mr. Rohit K. Sinha, learned Counsel for the Respondent.3. The husband of the Appellant met with an accident and sustained injuries to which he ultimately succumbed. The wife, the minor child and the parents as claimants instituted M.A.C. Case No. 11/2011 before the learned Additional District Judge-cum-4th Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal, Angul (for short "the Tribunal") putting forth a claim for Rs. 15,00,000/- (Rs. fifteen lakhs).4. The Tribunal upon consideration of material brought on record awarded a sum of Rs. 13,97,000/- (Rs. thirteen lakhs and ninety seven thousand) along with interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realization.5. On an appeal being preferred the High Court noted the amount determined by the Tribunal and opined that the same was in excess and reduced it to, Rs. 9,56,000/- (Rs. nine lakhs and fifty six thousand).6. On a perusal of the order passed by the High Court we find that no reason has been ascribed. In fact, it is an extremely cryptic order. In our considered opinion the learned Single Judge would have been well advised to ascribe some reasons if it was of the view that the amount deserved to be reduced. There has to be a valid and cogent reasons while passing of a judgment or order. When people in distress approach the Tribunal and the amount has been granted on appreciation of certain aspect, the appellate court has to appreciate the evidence and thereafter express any view. It cannot arbitrarily modify the quantum that makes the order totally unsustainable.7. It is submitted by Mr. Hitendra Nath Rath, learned Counsel for the Appellant that the deceased has left behind his wife, minor child and the parents and he was the sole bread winner and was Tyre Mistry in M/s. Tripure Coal Transport Private Ltd. (TCTPL), Bharatpur, MCL, Talcher and the Tribunal had determined the monthly income at Rs. 9000/- after deducting the one-fourth of the amount towards expenditure on himself and applied the multiplier of 17. To the aforesaid, it added the certain amount for loss of consortium and other benefits eventually which came to Rs. 13,97,000/- (Rs. thirteen lakhs and ninety seven thousand).8. In our considered opinion the amount that was determined by the Tribunal was just and reasonable and there was no justification on the part of the High Court to reduce the same.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
1[ds]6. On a perusal of the order passed by the High Court we find that no reason has been ascribed. In fact, it is an extremely cryptic order. In our considered opinion the learned Single Judge would have been well advised to ascribe some reasons if it was of the view that the amount deserved to be reduced. There has to be a valid and cogent reasons while passing of a judgment or order. When people in distress approach the Tribunal and the amount has been granted on appreciation of certain aspect, the appellate court has to appreciate the evidence and thereafter express any view. It cannot arbitrarily modify the quantum that makes the order totally unsustainable8. In our considered opinion the amount that was determined by the Tribunal was just and reasonable and there was no justification on the part of the High Court to reduce the same.