RUPA ROY versus THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD. & ANR.
[2019] 10 S.C.R. 327, Supreme Court of India, 2019
Outcome: Appeal(s) allowed (Granted)
Segment: Ratio
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
327
RUPA ROY
v.
THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD. & ANR.
(Civil Appeal No.5932 of 2019)
JULY 29, 2019
[ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE AND INDU MALHOTRA, JJ.]
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – ss. 166 and 173 – Enhancement
of compensation – Appellant and her minor son were travelling in a
rickshaw van, one Matador van came on high speed from opposite
side and dashed the rickshaw van – All the occupants of the rickshaw
van sustained serious injuries – Appellant’s minor son suffered
permanent disability in his body to the extent of 70% – Appellant
filed claim petition u/s. 166 of the Act – Tribunal partly allowed the
appellant’s claim and awarded compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- –
Appeal was dismissed by the High Court – On appeal held: High
Court committed jurisdictional error in dismissing the appeal
because it failed to appreciate the evidence and also failed to assign
any reason for the dismissal of the appeal – Minor son of the
appellant suffered permanent disability in his body to the extent of
70% and the same was proved by the doctor – Taking into
consideration the age of the victim, the extent of disability suffered,
the medical treatment so far taken, mental pain and suffering caused
to the victim, the award of Rs.2,00,000/- enhanced to
Rs.10,00,000/- – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – s. 96.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. The High court committed jurisdictional error
in dismissing the appeal because it failed to appreciate the
evidence and also failed to assign
any reason for the dismissal of
the appeal. An appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988 is akin to Section 96 of Code of Civil Procedure,
1908. The scope of the appellate powers under Section 173 of
the Act, how such powers should be exercised while hearing the
appeal and why it is necessary for the Courts to assign the reasons
for reaching to the conclusion while passing any order/judgment
was examined by Supreme Court in various cases. [Paras 13, 14]
[2019]  10 S.C.R. 327
    327
[331-B-C]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
328
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 10  S.C.R.
Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation v.
Mamta & Ors., (2016) 4 SCC 172 ; G. Saraswathi &
Ors. v. Rathinammal & Ors. (2018)  3 SCC 340 :  [2018]
2  SCR 548 ; Central Board of Trustees v. Indore
Composite Pvt. Ltd., (2018) 8 SCC 443 :  [2018] 7 SCR
1130  –  referred to.
2. The High Court should have taken note of the law laid
down by this Court in the aforementioned cases and should have
decided the appeal accordingly. Since the High Court failed to do
so and hence this Court is required to examine the case in the
light of the evidence adduced by the appellant on the question as
to the nature of injuries sustained by the victim-minor son of the
appellant and the extent of permanent disability suffered by him
on account of the injuries caused to him. [Para 15] [331-D]
3. On perusal of the evidence, this Court finds that the
victim, i.e., minor son of the appellant has suffered permanent
disability in his body to the extent of 70%.  The doctor has proved
it. The minor was aged about 10 years at the time of accident.
There is no evidence adduced in rebuttal by the respondents on
this issue. [Para 17] [331-F-G]
4. Taking into consideration the age of the victim, the extent
of disability suffered by the victim in his early age, the medical
treatment so far taken and to be taken in future to remedy the
ailment, mental pain and suffering caused to the victim due to
the injuries and lastly, the loss caused, the
award of
Rs.2,00,000/- by the Tribunal seems to be on lower side and the
same deserves to be enhanced suitably. Accordingly, a lump sum
amount of Rs. 10,00,000/- awarded to the appellant - she being
the mother of victim. [Paras 18 and 19] [331-G-H; 332-A-B]
     Case Law Reference
(2016) 4 SCC 172
     referred to
Para 14
[2018] 2 SCR 548
     referred to
Para 14
[2018] 7 SCR 1130
     referred to
Para 14
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
329
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 5932
of 2019
From the Judgment and Order dated 04.08.2015 of the High Court
of Calcutta in F.M.A. No. 647 of 2009
Rauf Rahim, Ms. Manisha Pandey, Advs. for the Appellant.
A. Jain, Shiv Bhalla, Rameshwar Prasad Goyal,  Advs. for the
Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J.  1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal is directed against the final judgment and order
dated 04.08.2015 passed by the High Court at Calcutta in F.M.A. No.647
of 2009 whereby the High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the
appellant herein and affirmed the award dated  16.02.2008 passed by
the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal & District Judge, Nadia in  M.A.C.
Case No.3 of 2005.
3. A few facts need to be mentioned hereinbelow for the disposal
of this appeal, which involves a short point.
4. The appellant is the claimant (applicant) and the respondents
are the non-applicants in the claim petition filed before the Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal”) out of which
this appeal arises.
5. On 19.07.2004, when the appellant with her husband and minor
son – Sourangshu was going towards Gachha Bazar Bus Stoppage on a
rickshaw van, one Matador van bearing No. WB 57/5270 came on a
high speed from opposite side and dashed the rickshaw van as a result
of which all the occupants of the rickshaw van suffered serious injuries.
 6. The appellant’s minor son-Sourangshu aged around 10
years,
who was travelling with the appellant-his mother, suffered multiple injuries
on his body. He was taken to the hospital where he received the treatment
for a long time. After treatment, it was certified that he was Orthopedically
disabled with post-traumatic paraplegia and weakness in his right hand.
The permanent disability in his body was diagnosed to the extent of 70%
due to injuries caused to him in the accident.
RUPA ROY  v. NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
330
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 10  S.C.R.
7. This gave rise to filing of the claim petition by the appellant
against the respondents, i.e., owner/driver and insurer of the offending
vehicle under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988(hereinafter
referred to as “the Act”) claiming compensation for the disabilities caused
to her son due to injuries.
8.  It was inter alia alleged that the accident occurred due to rash
and negligent driving of the driver/owner of the offending vehicle-
respondent No. 2 and that it was insured with respondent No. 1 on the
date of accident. It was alleged that due to permanent disability suffered
by the appellant’s son, the appellant is entitled to claim suitable
compensation for him.
9. The respondents contested the claim. By award dated
16.02.2008, the Tribunal partly allowed the appellant’s claim petition and
awarded a compensation of  Rs. 2,00,000/-  to the appellant. The appellant
felt aggrieved and filed an appeal before the High Court at Calcutta. By
impugned order, the High Court dismissed the appeal which gives rise to
filing of the present appeal by way of special leave by the appellant
(claimant) in this Court.
10. Heard Mr. Rauf Rahim, learned counsel for the appellant and
Mr. A. Jain, learned counsel for respondent No.1.
11. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal
of the record of the case, we are inclined to allow the appeal and while
setting aside the impugned order modify the award
passed by the Tribunal
and accordingly enhance the compensation to the extent indicated
hereinbelow in favour of the appellant.
12. On perusal of the impugned order, we find that the High Court
did not assign any reason for dismissal of the appellant’s appeal, which
reads as under:
“We have gone through the award so pronounced by the
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and we are of the opinion
that there is no perversity or illegality in the award so passed
by the Tribunal.”
13. In our view, the High court committed jurisdictional error in
dismissing the appeal because it failed to appreciate the evidence and
also failed to assign any reason for the dismissal of the appeal. In the
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
331
absence of any discussion and the reasoning, we are at a loss to know
as to what persuaded the High Court to dismiss the appeal.
14.  An appeal filed under Section 173 of the Act is akin to Section
96 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as “the
Code”). The scope of the appellate powers under Section 173 of the
Act, how such powers should be exercised while hearing the appeal and
why it is necessary for the Courts to assign the reasons for reaching to
the conclusion while passing any order/judgment was examined by this
Court in the case of Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport
Corporation vs. Mamta & Ors., (2016) 4 SCC 172, G. Saraswathi
& Ors. vs. Rathinammal & Ors., (2018) 3 SCC 340 and Central
Board of Trustees vs. Indore Composite Pvt. Ltd., (2018) 8 SCC
443.
15.  In our view, the High Court should have taken note of the law
laid down by this Court in the aforementioned cases and should have
decided the appeal accordingly. Since the High Court failed to do so and
hence we are required to examine the case in the light of the evidence
adduced by the appellant on the question as to the nature of injuries
sustained by the victim-minor son of the appellant and the extent of
permanent disability suffered by him on account of the injuries caused to
him.
16. Therefore, the only question, which is involved in this appeal,
is whether the Courts below were justified in awarding a sum of
Rs.2,00,000/- to the appellant(claimant) for the injuries
sustained by her
minor son. So far as the other issue is concerned, such as liability of the
Insurance Company, the same need not be considered because the
Insurance Company has not questioned it.
17. On perusal of the evidence, we find that the victim, i.e., minor
son of the appellant has suffered permanent disability in his body to the
extent of 70%.  The doctor has proved it. The minor was aged about 10
years at the time of accident. There is no evidence adduced in rebuttal
by the respondents on this issue.
18. Taking into consideration the age of the victim, the extent of
disability suffered by the victim in his early age, the medical treatment
so far taken and to be taken in future to remedy the ailment, mental pain
and suffering caused to the victim due to the injuries and lastly, the loss
RUPA ROY  v. NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD.
[ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
332
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 10  S.C.R.
caused, the award of Rs.2,00,000/- by the Tribunal seems to be on lower
side and the same deserves to be enhanced suitably.
19. We accordingly consider it just and proper to award a lump
sum amount of Rs10,00,000/- to the appellant - she being the mother of
victim.  It will enable her to take care of her son and for his upbringing
and also towards the amount which the appellant and her husband has
so far spent on the treatment of their son and is required to spent in
future. While awarding the lump sum amount, we have taken into account
all the aforementioned factors, which are relevant.
20. The sum awarded by this Court (Rs.10,00,000/-) would carry
6% interest which will be payable to the appellant from the date of the
impugned order of the High Court. Respondent No. 1 would pay the
awarded sum to the appellant after adjusting Rs.2,00,000/- together with
interest awarded by the Tribunal, if already paid to the appellant. Let the
amount be worked out and be paid as awarded by this Court within 3
months.
21. The appeal is accordingly allowed.  The impugned order is set
aside. Counsel fees Rs.10,000/- payable by respondent No.1 to the
appellant.
Ankit Gyan
                                Appeal allowed.