Case: U P S R T C Vs. Mamta

4) The respondents-Claimant(Plaintiffs) filed a Claim Petition under Sections 140 and 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (in short the M.V. Act) against the appellant-Corporation before the Tribunal, Hathras claiming compensation to the tune of Rs.36,35,880/- for the death of one Raj Kumar Gautam, who died in a vehicular accident. According to the respondents, on 22.09.2010, Raj Kumar Gautam-the deceased while going on his Motor Cycle bearing No. UP-86F-9224 on Hathras-Agra road near a place called Ghas Mandi was hit by the appellants bus bearing Registration No. UP-14-AB-90385) It was, inter alia, alleged that the offending bus was coming on wrong side with high speed and hit the motor cycle, which was being driven by the deceased, on the right side of the road. The deceased who was aged 49 years sustained extensive injuries and later succumbed to the injuries which gave rise to the filing of the claim petition by his legal representatives (respondents herein) claiming compensation for the untimely death of Raj Kumar Gautam. The respondents also pleaded the details regarding loss of income and other particulars necessary for claiming compensation in the claim petition6) The appellant-Corporation filed written statement and contested the claim petition. One of the grounds taken in the defence was that of contributory negligence on the part of the deceased also while driving the motor cycle which resulted in the accident7) The Tribunal, by award dated 18.02.2014, partly allowed the claim petition and awarded a total sum of Rs.24,73,252/- along with interest @ 6% p.a. from date of filing till its realization to the respondents8) Challenging the said Award, the appellant-Corporation filed an appeal before the High Court. By impugned order dated 28.05.2014, the Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the award of the Tribunal9) Against the said order, the appellant-Corporation has filed this appeal by way of special leave

Reasoning:
High Court neither set out the facts of the case of the parties, nor dealt with any of the submissions urged, nor took note of the grounds raised by the appellant and nor made any attempt to appreciate the evidence in the light of the settled legal principles applicable to the issues arising in the case to find out as to whether the award of the Tribunal is legally sustainable or not and if so, how, and if not, why?the duty of the High Court to have decided the appeal keeping in view the powers conferred on it by the statute. The impugned judgment also does not, in our opinion, satisfy the requirements of Order XX Rule 4 (2) read with Order XLI Rule 31 of the Code which requires that judgment shall contain a concise statement of the case, points for determination, decisions thereon and the reasons. It is for this reason, we are unable to uphold the impugned judgment of the High Court