LexRANJANA PRAKASH AND ORS. versus DIVISIONAL MANAGER AND ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2011) 9 S.C.R. 616 A RANJANA PRAKASH AND ORS. v. DIVISIONAL MANAGER AND ANR. (Civil Appeal No. 6110 of 2011) JULY 29, 2011 ~ 8 [R.V. RAVEENDRAN AND A.K. PATNAIK, JJ.] Motor Vehicles Act, 1988: c Compensation - Claim for - Deceased was a 46 year old Bank Manager and his monthly salary was Rs.23, 1341- - Claims Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.24, 12,9361- - On appeal by the insurer, the High Court accepted its' t contention that the Tribunal ought to have deducted 30% from D the income towards income tax and accordingly reduced the compensation to Rs. 16, 89, 0551- - The High Court ignored the contention of the claimants that 30% should have been added to the income towards future prospects, holding that the claimants had not challenged the award of the Tribunal on that E ground, and therefore they cannot find fault with it - Held: The High Court committed an error in ignoring the contention of the claimants -Where in an appeal filed by the owner/insurer, if the High Court proposes to reduce the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the claimants can certainly defend F the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, by pointing out other errors or omissions in the award, which if taken note of, would show that there was no need to reduce the amount awarded as compensation - Therefore, in an appeal by the owner/insurer, the appellant can certainly put forth a contention that if 30% is to be deducted from the \ G income for whatsoever reason, 30% should also be added towards future prospects, so that the compensation awarded is not reduced - The fact that claimants did not independently challenge the award will not come in the way of their defending the compensation awarded, on other grounds - It would only H 616 RANJANA PRAKASH AND ORS. v. DIVISIONAL 617 -, .. MANAGER AND ANR. mean that in an appeal by the owner/insurer, the claimants A will not be entitled to seek enhancement of the compensation by urging any new ground, in the absence of any cross-appeal or cross-objections - This principle also flows from CJr. 41 Rule f 33 of CPC which enables an appellate court to pass any order "' which ought to have been passed by the trial court and to B make such further or other order as the case may require, even if the respondent had not filed any appeal or cross- objections - This power is entrusted to the appellate court to .. enable it to do complete justice between the parties - Or. 41 Rule 33 of CPC can be pressed into service to make the c award more effective or maintain the award on other grounds or to make the other parties to litigation to share the benefits 1 or the liability, but cannot be invoked to get a larger or higher relief - In the instant case, the 30% increase on account of 1 future prospects and the 30% deduction on account of income D tax would cancel each other, resulting in the 'income' remaining unchanged - As a result, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal would remain unaltered - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order 41, Rule 33. Compensation - Appeal challenging the quantum of E compensation - Jurisdiction of the High Court - Held: Where an appeal is filed challenging the quantum of compensation, " irrespective of who files the appeal, the appropriate course for the High Court is to examine the facts and by applying the relevant principles, determine the just compensation - If the F compensation ·determined by it is higher than the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the High Court will allow the appeal, if it is by the claimants and dismiss the appeal, if it is by the owner/insurer - Similarly, if the ' compensation .determined by the High Court is lesser than G the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the High Court will dismiss any appeal by the claimants for enhancement, but allow any appeal by owner/insurer for reduction - The High Court cannot increase the compensation in an appeal by owner/insurer for reducing the compensation, nor can it H 618 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 9 S.C.R. "' t \. A reduce the compensation in an appeal by the claimants seeking enhancement of compensation. Sar/a Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation (2009) 6 SCC 121: 2009(5) SCR 1098 - relied on. ' B Shyamwati Sharma v. Karam Singh (2010) 12 SCC 378: ~ 2010 (8)SCR 417 - referred to. Case Law Reference: c 2009 (5) SCR 1098 Para 3, 9 relied on 2010 (8) SCR 417 Para 3 referred to CIVIL APPELALT
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.