Case: SUDARSAN PUHAN Vs. JAYANTA KUMAR MOHANTY AND ANR

2. In order to appreciate the issue involved in these appeals, few facts need mention infra3. The Appellant herein was the claimant before the Tribunal whereas Respondent-owner of the vehicle (motorcycle) was the non-applicant No. 1 and the Insurance Company was non-applicant No. 2 in the Appellants claim petition4. On 31.10.2012, the Appellant-claimant with one Dipak Kumar Pradhan was going on a motorcycle bearing No. OR-07 S 3133 from Baisinga to Baripada on National Highway 18 in the State of Orissa. The abovesaid Motorcycle met with an accident with a Mini Truck (407) wherein the Appellant-claimant suffered severe injuries. The motorcycle was owned by Jayanta Kumar Mohanty (Respondent No. 1 in CA 3798/2016 & Respondent No. 2 in CA No. 3799/2016) and was insured with the National Insurance Company Ltd. (Respondent No. 2 in CA 3798/2016 & Respondent No. 1 in CA 3799/2016)5. According to the Appellant-claimant, he was in the age group of 25-27 years at the time of accident and suffered the disease of paraplegia (injury in spinal cord) as a result of the abovesaid accident6. The Appellant-claimant, therefore, filed a claim petition before the Tribunal, Mayurbhanj Baripada (Orissa) Under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the MV Act) against the Respondents (owner of the motorcycle and the Insurance company) and claimed reasonable compensation for the injuries sustained by him and other statutory compensation payable under the MV Act for causing such injuries. The Respondents contested the claim petition7. By award dated 17.05.2014, the Tribunal allowed the Appellants claim petition in part and holding the Respondents (non-applicants) liable for payment of the compensation to the Appellant-claimant jointly and severely awarded a total sum of Rs. 24,62,065/- with interest payable at the rate of 7% per annum under various heads8. The Appellant-claimant and the Insurance Company both felt aggrieved by the award, filed appeals in the High Court of Orissa at Cuttack9. So far as M.A.C.A. No. 690/2014 is concerned, it was filed by the Appellant-claimant for enhancement of the amount awarded by the Tribunal whereas so far as M.A.C.A. No. 839/2014 is concerned, it was filed by the Insurance Company against the award challenging therein the quantum of compensation to be on a higher side10. By impugned order, the High Court allowed the appeal filed by the Insurance Company (M.A.C.A. No. 839/2014) in part and accordingly reduced the compensation from Rs. 24,62,065/- to Rs. 20,00,000/-. As a result of the main order passed in favour of the Insurance Company in their appeal, the appeal filed by the Appellant-claimant (M.A.C.A. No. 690/2014) seeking enhancement in the quantum of compensation was dismissed as having rendered infructuous11. The Appellant-claimant felt aggrieved by the order of the High Court filed two appeals by way of special leave in this Court. One is filed against an order by which the claimants appeal for enhancement in the quantum of compensation was dismissed as having rendered infructuous and the other is filed against an order by which the Insurance Companys appeal was partly allowed by reducing the quantum of compensation from Rs. 24,62,065/- to Rs. 20,00,000/-12. It may be mentioned that so far as the Insurance Company is concerned, they have not filed any appeal against the order of the High Court. In other words, the Insurance Company seems satisfied with the quantum of compensation amount of Rs. 20,00,000/- awarded by the High Court by the impugned order.

Reasoning:
20. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record of the case, we find force in the submissions of the learned Counsel for the Appellant-claimant21. The powers of the first Appellate Court while deciding the first appeal are indeed well defined by various judicial pronouncements of this Court and are, therefore, no more res integra31. An appeal Under Section 173 of the M.V. Act is essentially in the nature of first appeal alike Section 96 of the Code and, therefore, the High Court is equally under legal obligation to decide all issues arising in the case both on facts and law after appreciating the entire evidence. [See National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Naresh Kumar and Ors. ((2000) 10 SCC 198 and State of Punjab and Anr. v. Navdeep Kuur and Ors. (2004) 13 SCC 680]32. As observed supra, as a first Appellate Court, it was the duty of the High Court to have decided the appeals keeping in view the requirements of Order XX Rule 4(2) read with Order XLI Rule 31 of the Code which requires that judgment/order shall contain a concise statement of the case, points for determination, decisions thereon and the reasons34. Mere perusal of the afore-quoted order of the High Court would show that the High Court neither set out the facts of the case of the parties in detail, nor dealt with any of the submissions urged except to mention them, nor took note of the grounds raised by the claimant 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 and proceeded to allow the appeal filed by the Insurance Company and reduced the compensation from Rs. 24,62,065/- to Rs. 20,00,000/-35. The High Court only observed Considering the submissions of the learned Counsel for the parties and I feel that compensation should have been awarded as Rs. 20,00,000/- and not Rs. 24,62,065/- . No reasons were given by the High Court as to why the amount of compensation should be reduced from Rs. 24,62,065/- to Rs. 20,00,000/- and why it cannot be enhanced. Since the Appellant-claimant had also filed appeal for enhancement of the compensation, the entire controversy was again open for decision before the High Court at the instance of the claimant and Insurance Company. It was, therefore, necessary for the High Court to assign the reasons for not granting enhancement of compensation and/or its reduction. In the absence of any reasons, we are unable to uphold the impugned orders of the High Court36. As mentioned above, the Insurance Company did not choose to file any special leave to appeal in this Court against the impugned order of the High Court. The effect of non-filing of appeal is that the Insurance Company has in principle accepted the High Courts order37. This Court having allowed the claimants appeal and setting aside the impugned order, it results in dismissal of the appeal filed by the Insurance Company (M.A.C.A. No. 839 of 2014) and allowing of the appeal (M.A.C.A. No. 690/2014) filed by the claimant. Had the Insurance Company filed special leave to appeal against the impugned order in this Court seeking further reduction in the compensation awarded by the High Court like what the Insurance Company did when they had filed appeal before the High Court questioning inter alia the quantum of compensation being on higher side, the Insurance Company too would have been entitled to prosecute their appeal on merits after remand before the High Court in terms of this order. It was, however, not done by the Insurance Company.