U.P.S.R.T.C.  versus KM. MAMTA & ORS
[2016] 2 S.C.R. 71, Supreme Court of India, 2016
Outcome: Unknown
Segment: Facts
[2016] 2 S.C.R. 71 
U.P.S.R.T.C. 
v. 
Km. MAMTA & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No.1425 of2016) 
FEBRUARY 12, 2016 
[J. CHELAMESWAR AND ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, JJ.] 
A 
B 
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - s. 17 3 - First appeal under -
Scope of - Held: An al?peal u/s. 17 3 is in the nature of first appeal 
like s. 96 CPC - High Court in exercise of such jurisdiction, is 
C 
under legal obligation to decide all the issues, both on facts and 
law after appreciating the entire evidence - Jn the present._case, 
since the High Court as first Appellate court failed to perform its 
statutory duty, matter remanded to High Court - Code of Civil 
Procedure, 1908 - s. 96. 
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Or. X¥ r. 4(2) rlw. Or. XL! r. 
31 - Judgment of High Court - Passed in appeal uls. 17 3 of Motor 
Vehicles Act, 1988 - Without giving concise statement of case, points 
for determination, decisions thereon and reasons - Held: Such 
iudgment does not satisfy requirements of Or. X¥ r. 4(2) rlw Or. XL! 
r. 31 and hence cannot be upheld - Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - s. 
173. 
Partly allowing the appeal and remitting the matter to High 
Court, the Court 
HELD 1.1 An appeal under Section 173 of the Motor 
Vehicles Act is essentially in the nature of first appeal alike Section 
96 of CPC 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. (Para 24] (78-D] 
D 
E 
F 
1.2 Perusal of the impugned
order of the High Court would 
show that the High Court neither set out the facts of the case of G 
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 H 
71
72 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2016] 2 S.C.R. 
A 
not and if so, how, and if not, why? As a first appellate Court, it 
was the duty of the High Court to have decided the appeal keeping 
in view the powers conferred on it by the statute. [Paras 26 and 
271 [78-H; 79-A-B] 
B 
c 
D 
Santosh Hazari vs. Purushottam Tiwari (Deceased) by 
L.Rs. (2001) 3 SCC 179:2001 (1) SCR 948; Madhukar 
~ Ors. v. Sanf<ram & Ors. (2001) 4 SCC 756: 2001 (3) 
SCR 138; H.K.N. Swami 1~ lrshad Basith (2005) 10 SCC 
243; Jagannath " Aru/appa & Anr. (2005) 12 SCC 303; 
B. V Ndgesh & Anr. vs. H. V. Sreenivasa Murthy (2010) 
13 SCC 530: 2010 (11) SCR 784; State Bank of India 
& Anr. vs. Emmsons International Ltd. & Anr. (2011) 12 
SCC 174: 2011 (10) SCR 436; National Insurance 
Company Ltd. vs. Naresh Kumar & Ors. (2000) 10 SCC 
198; State of Punjab & Am: vs. Navdeep Kuur & Ors. 
(2004) 13 sec 680 - relied on. 
Kurian Chacko vs. Varkey Ouseph AIR 1969 Kerala 
316 - approved. 
2. The impugned judgment also does not satisfy the 
requirements of Order XX Rule 4 (2) read with Order XLI Rule 
31 of CPC which requires that judgment shall contain a concise 
E 
statement of the case, points for determination, decisions thereon 
and tlfe reasons. It is for this reason, the impugned judgment of 
the High Court cannot be upheld. [Para 27] [79-C] 
3. The case is remanded to the High Court for deciding the 
appeal afresh on merits, keeping in view the principle of law laid 
F 
down by this Court, on merits uninfluenced by
the observations 
in the present judgment. [Paras 29 and 30] (79-D-E] 
Case Law Reference 
AIR 1969 Kerala 316 
approved. 
Para 15 
2001 (1.) SCR 948 
relied on 
Para 18 
G 2001 (~) SCR 138 
relied on 
Para 19 
c2005) 10 sec 243 
relied on 
Para 20 
c2005) 12 sec 303 
relied on 
Para 21 
20JO (11) SCR 784 
relied on 
Para 22 
20Jl (10) SCR 436 
relied on 
Para 23 
H 
c2000) 10 sec 198 
relied on 
Para 24 
c2004) 13 sec 680 
relied on 
Para 24
U.P.S.R.T.C. 
v. KM. MAMTA 
73 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1425 
A 
of2016., 
From the Judgment and Order dated 28.05.2014 of the High Court 
of Judicature at Allahabad at Allahabad in First Appeal from Order No. 
1681 of2014. 
Ms. Garima Prashad, Advs. for the Appellant.· 
Prakash Kumar Singh, Adv. for the Respondent. 
-The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J. 1. Leave granted. 
2. This appeal is filed by the defendant/appellant-Corporation 
against the judgment/order dated 28.05.2014 passed by the Division 
Bench of the High Court of Allahabad in First Appeal from Order No. 
1681 of 2014, which in turn, arises out of an Award dated 18.02.2014 
passed by the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal/District Judge (in short 
'the Tribunal'), Hathras, Uttar Pradesh in MACT No. 131 of 2010. 
3. In order to appreciate the short issue involved in this appeal, it 
is necessary to state a few relevant facts: 
4. The respondents-Claiinant(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, Hatlmis 
claiming compensation to the tune ofRs.36,35,880/- for the death of one 
Raj Kumar G11utam, 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
appellant's bus 
bearing Registration No. UP-14-AB-903 8. 
5. It was, inter alia, alleged that the offending bus was coming 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
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 
G 
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 K•:mar Gautam. The respondents also pleaded 
the details regarding loss of income and other particulars necessary for 
claiming compensation in the claim petition. 
H
74 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2016] 2 S.C.R. 
A 
6. 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 accident. 
7. The Tribunal, by award dated 18.02.2014, partly allowed the 
B 
claim petition and awarded a total sum of Rs.24, 73,252/- along with 
interest@6"/o p.a. from date of filing till its realization to the respondents. 
8. 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 
C 
the award of the Tribunal. 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
9. Against the said order, the appellant-Corporation has filed this 
appeal by way of special leave. 
I 0. Learned Counsel forthe appellant-Corporation while assailing 
the legality and correctness of the impugned order contended that the 
High Court without adverting to all the factual details and grounds raised 
in the appeal, disposed of the appeal in a cryptic manner. According to 
learned counsel, the High Court neither set out the facts, nor dealt with 
any issue, nor appreciated the ocular and documentary evidence in its 
proper perspective, nor examined the legal principles applicable to the 
issues arising in the case and nor rendered its findings on contentious 
issues decided by the Tribunal though
urged by the appellant in support 
of the appeal. 
11. Learned counsel further contended that it was the duty of the 
High Court exercising its first appellate powers under Section 173 of the 
M.V. Act to have dealt with all the submissions urged by the appellant-
Corporation and after appreciating the entire evidence should have come 
to its own conclusion one way or the other keeping in view the legal 
principles governing the issues. It was urged that since it was not done 
by the High Court, a jurisdictional error is committed by the High Court 
which renders the impugned judgment legally unsustainable. Lastly, the 
learned counsel urged that if his arguments are accepted, the remand of 
the case to the High Court to decide the appeal afresh on merits is 
inevitable. 
12. Learned counsel for the respondents, however, supported the 
impugned order and urged that it does not call for any interference.
U.P.S.R.T.C. v. KM. MAMTA [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J.) 
75 
13. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal 
A 
of the record.of the case, we find force in the.submission of the learned 
counsel for the appellant-Corporation. 
14. 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 integra. 
B 
15. As far back in 1969, the learned Judge - V.R. Krishna Iyer, J 
(as His Lordship then was the judge ofKerala High Court) while deciding 
the first appeal under Section 96 of the CPC in·Kuri(ln C/t(lcko vs. 
V(lrkey Ousep/1, AIR 1969 Kerala 316, reminded the first appellate 
court of its duty to decide the first appeal. In his distinctive style of c 
writing with suotle power ofexpression, the learned judge held as under: 
"1. The plaintiff, unsuccessful in two Courts, has come up 
here aggrieved by the dismi~sal of his suit which was one 
for declaration of title and recovery of possession. The 
defendant disputed the plaintiff's title to the property as 
also his possession and claimed both in himself. The learned 
M!lnsif, who tried the suit, recorded findings against the 
plaintiff both on title and possession. But, in appeal, the 
learned Subordinate Judge disposed of the whole matter" 
glibly and briefly, in a few sentences. 
2. An appellate court is the final Court of fact ordinarily and 
therefore a litigant is entitled to a full and
fair and 
independent consideration of the evidence at the appellate 
stage. Anything less than this is unjust to him and I have 
D 
E 
no doubt that in the present case tbe learned Subordinate 
Judge has fallen far short of what is expected of him as an 
F 
appellate Court. Although there is furious contest between 
the counsel for the appellant and for the respondent, they 
appear to agree with me in this observation ..... " 
(Emphasis supplied) 
16. This Court also in various cases reiterated the aforesaid 
principle and laid down the powers of the appellate Court under Section 
96 of the Code while deciding the first appeal. 
17. We consider it apposite to refer to some of the decisions. 
G 
18. In Smuoslt H(lz(lri vs. Puruslwft(lm Tiw(lri (Dece(lsed) by 
H
76 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2016] 2 S.C.R. 
L.Rs. (200 I) 3 SCC 179, this Court held (at pages 188-189) as under: 
" ......... the appellate court has jurisdiction to reverse or 
affirm the findings of the trial court. First appeal is a 
valuable right of the parties and unless restricted by law, 
the whole case is therein open for rehearing both on 
questions of fact and law. The judgment of the appellate 
court must, therefore, reflect its conscious application of 
mind and record findings supported by reasons, on all. the 
issues arising along with the contentions put forth, and 
pressed by the parties for decision of the appellate 
court ...... while reversing a finding of fact the appellate 
court must come into cl«;ise quarters with the reasoning 
assigned by the trial coo.rt and then assign its own reasons 
for arriving at a different finding. This would satisfy the court 
hearing a further appeal that the first appellate court had 
discharged the duty expected of it ............ " 
19. The above view was followed by a three-Judge Bench decision 
of this Court in Mad/1ukar & Ors. v. Sa11gram & Ors. ,(200 I) 4 SCC 
756, wherein it was reiterated that sitting as a court of first appeal, it is 
the duty of the High Court to deal with all the issues and the evidence 
led by the parties before recording its findings. 
20. In H.K.N. Swami v. Irshad Basith,(2005) JO SCC 2./3, 
this Court (at p. 244) stated as under: (SCC para 3) 
"3. The first appeal has
to be decided on facts as well as on 
law. In the first appeal parties have the right to be heard 
both on questions of law as also on facts and the first 
appellate court is required to address itself to all issues 
and decide the case by giving reasons. Unfortunately, the 
High Court, in the present case has not recorded any finding 
either on facts or on law. Sitting as the first appellate court 
it was the duty of the High Court to deal with all the issues 
and the evidence led by the parties before recording the 
finding regarding title." 
21. Again in Jaga11m1th v. Arulappa & Anr .. (2005) 12 SCC 
303, while considering the scope of Section 96 of the Code of Civil 
Procedure, 1908, this Court (at pp. 303-04) observed as follows: (SCC 
H 
para 2)
U.P.S.R.T.C. v. KM. MAMTA [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J.] 
77 
"2. A court of first appeal can reappreciate the entire A 
evidence and come to a different conclusion ......... " 
22. Again in B. V Nageslt & Anr. vs. H. V. Sreenivasa Murthy, 
(20 I 0) 13 SCC 530, this Court takingnote of all the earlier judgments of 
this court reiterated the aforementioned principle with these words: 
"3. How the regular first appeal is to be disposed of by the B 
appellate court/High Cou!t has been considered by this 
Court in various decisions. Order 41 CPC deals with appeals 
from original decrees. Among the various rules, Rule 31 
mandates that the judgment of.the appellate court shall state: 
(a) the points for determination; 
(b) the decision thereon; 
(c) the reasons for the decision; and 
(ti) where the decree appealed from is reversed or 
varied, the relief to which the appellant is entitled. 
c 
4.The appellate court has jurisdiction to reverse or affirm 
D 
the findings of the trial court. The first appeal is a valuable 
right of the parties and unless restricted by law, the whole 
case is therein open for rehearing both on questions of fact 
and law. The judgment of the appellate court must, therefore, 
reflect its conscious application of mind and record findings 
supported by reasons, on all the issues arising along with 
E 
the contentions put forth, and pressed by the parties for 
decision.of the appellate court. Sitting as a court of first 
appeal, it was the duty of the High
Court to deal with all the· 
i_ssues and the evidence led by the parties before recording 
its findings. The first appeal is a valuable right and the parties 
have a right to be heard both on questions of law and on 
facts and the judgment in the first appeal must address itself 
F 
to aft the issues of la.w and fact and decide it by giving 
reasons in support of the findings. (Vide Suntosli Huzari v. 
Puruslwttam Tiwari, (2001) 3 SCC 179 at p. 188, para 15 
G 
and Mudltukur v. Sungrum, (2001) 4 SCC 756 at p. 758, 
para 5.) 
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 
H .
78 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2016] 2 S.C.R. 
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." 
23. The aforementioned cases were reli_ed upon by this Court 
while reiterating the same principle in Slu/e Bunk of Incliu & Anr. vs. 
Emmsons Internulional LlcL & Anr., (2011) 12 SCC 174. 
24. 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 Nulional Insurance Company Lid. vs. Naresh Kumur & Ors. 
((2000) 10 SCC 198 and Stule of Punjub & Anr. vs. N11vtleep Kuur & 
Ors. (2004) 13 SCC 680]. 
25. Coming now to the facts of the case in hand, we consider it 
appropriate to reproduce the whole order of the High Court infra: 
"The only ground urged is that there was contributory 
· negligencf
also on the part of the deceased and therefore, 
the compensation awarded should have been reduced 
· proportionately. We have perused the site plan and we find 
that the accident occurred on a crossing. The site plan 
clearly indicates that the offending vehicle namely the Bus 
was on the right side of the road left no scope for the 
deceased who was traveling on the left side of the road. 
Consequently, we are of the opinion that there was no 
contributory negligence on the part of the deceased at the 
time when the accident occurred. The appeal fails and is 
dismissed.' 
26. 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, nor dealt with any of the submissions urged,,nortook note of
U.P.S.R.T.C. v. KM. MAMTA (ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J.] 
79 
the grounds raised by the appellant and nor made any attempt to appreciate 
A 
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 ifnot, why?. 
27. As observed supra, as a first appellate Court, it was 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 XL! Rule 31 of the Code which requires that judgment shall contain 
· a concise statement of the case, points for determination, decisions thereon 
and tlie reasons. It is for this reason, we are unable to uphold the impugned 
judgment of the High Court. 
28. The appeal thus succeeds and is accordingly allowed in part. 
The impugned judgment is set aside. 
B 
c 
29. As a necessary consequence, the case is remanded to the 
High Court for deciding the appeal afresh on merits, keeping in view the 
D-
princi~le oflaw laid down by this Court quoted above. 
30. However, we make it clear that we have not applied our mind 
to the merits of the issues involved in.the case and hence the High Court 
wouM decide the appeal strictly in accordance with law on merits 
uninfluenced by our observations. Needless to observe, the High Court 
will do so
after affording an opportunity of hearing to both the parties. 
We request the High Court to decide the appeal preferably within six 
months. No costs. 
Kalpana K. Tripathy 
Appeal partly allowed. 
E 
F