Sudarsan Puhan vs Jayanta Kumar Mohanty And Anr. Etc.

2) In   order   to   appreciate   the   issue   involved   in these appeals, few facts need mention infra.

3) The appellant herein was the claimant before the   Tribunal   whereas   respondent­owner   of   the vehicle (motorcycle) was the non­applicant No.1 and the Insurance Company was non­applicant No.2 in the appellant’s claim petition.

4) On   31.10.2012,   the   appellant­claimant   with one   Dipak   Kumar   Pradhan   was   going   on   a motorcycle bearing No.OR­07 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 2 appellant­claimant   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 appellant­claimant, he was in the age group of 25­27 years at the time of accident and   suffered   the   disease   of   “paraplegia”   (injury   in spinal cord) as a result of the abovesaid accident.

7) By   award   dated   17.05.2014,   the   Tribunal allowed   the   appellant’s   claim   petition   in   part   and holding   the   respondents(non­applicants)   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 heads.

9) So far as M.A.C.A.No.690/2014 is concerned, it   was   filed   by   the   appellant­claimant   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 4 against the award challenging therein the quantum of compensation to be on a higher side.

11) The   appellant­claimant   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   claimant’s   appeal   for enhancement in the quantum of compensation was dismissed as having rendered infructuous and the 5 other   is   filed   against   an   order   by   which   the Insurance Company’s appeal was partly allowed by reducing   the   quantum   of   compensation   from Rs.24,62,065/­ to Rs.20,00,000/­.

5. In view of the above salutary principles, on going through the impugned judgment, we feel   that   the   High   Court   has   failed   to discharge the obligation placed on it as a first appellate   court.   In   our   view,   the   judgment under   appeal   is   cryptic   and   none   of   the relevant aspects have even been noticed. The appeal has been decided in an unsatisfactory manner. Our careful perusal of the judgment in the regular first appeal shows that it falls short   of   considerations   which   are   expected from   the   court   of   first   appeal.   Accordingly, without going into the merits of the claim of both   parties,   we   set   aside   the   impugned judgment and  decree  of  the  High Court  and remand   the   regular   first   appeal   to   the   High Court   for   its   fresh   disposal   in   accordance with law.”

37) This   Court   having   allowed   the   claimant’s appeal   and   setting   aside   the   impugned   order,   it results   in   dismissal   of   the   appeal   filed   by   the 19 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.

39) In view of the foregoing discussion, we remand only   the   appellant­claimant’s   appeal   (M.A.C.A. No.690 of 2014) to the High Court for deciding the question   as   to   whether   any   case   is   made   out   for further enhancement from Rs.24,62,065/­ awarded by   the   Tribunal   and,   if   so,   on   what   grounds. Needless to say, the Insurance Company will have a right  to oppose  the appellant­claimant’s appeal on the merits.

40) However,   we   make   it   clear   that   we   have   not applied   our   mind   to   the   merits   of   the   issues involved   in   the   case   having   formed   an   opinion   to remand the case to the High Court and hence the 21 High   Court   would   decide   M.A.C.A.   No.690/2014 strictly   in   accordance   with   law   on   merits uninfluenced   by   any   of   our   observations.     We request   the   High   Court   to   decide   the   appeal preferably within six months.

41) The appeals thus succeed and are accordingly allowed in part. The impugned orders are set aside. No costs.