RAVIRAJ UDUPA versus M/S UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. & ORS.

Citation: [2011] 10 S.C.R. 276 · Decided: 16-08-2011 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: G.S. SINGHVI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2011] 10 S.C.R. 276 
A 
RAVIRAJ UDUPA 
B 
v. 
M/S UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal Nos. 7074-7-5 of 2011) 
•' 
AUGUST 16, 2011 
[G. S. SINGHVI AND H.L. DATTU, JJ.] 
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988: 
C 
s. 166 - Compensation for injuries suffered - Private 
contractor, aged 32 years and earning Rs.12,0001- per month 
met, with a motor accident - Tribunal considering the nature 
of injuries sustained, loss of future income on account of 
disability and other factors, awarded compensation of 
D Rs.4,06,4001- with 8% interest- High Court without recording 
reasons reduced the amount to Rs.2,82,6001- with 6% interest 
- HELD: The High Court, while tinkering with the conclusion 
reached by the Tribunal, should have assigned reasons in 
support of its conclusion - It is time and again said that the 
reasons are tl1e links between the materials on which certain 
E conclusions are based and the actual conclusions - They . 
disclose how the mind is applied to the subject matter for a 
decision and reveal a rational nexus between the facts 
considered and conclusions reached and thereby, exclude 
the chances to reach arbitrary, whimsical or capricious 
F decision or conclusion - There is no legal infirmity with the 
order passed by the Tribunal and the findings and the 
conclusions reached by it while assessing the entitlement of 
the claimant for compensation for the injury sustained by him 
are upheld -
The judgment and order passed by the High 
G Court is reversed and the judgment and awarded passed by 
the Tribunal restored - Judgments/Orders - Reasons for -
compensation. 
H 
276 
RAVIRAJ UDUPA v. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE 
277 
COMPANY LTD. & ORS. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos. 
A 
7074-7075 o.f 2011. 
From the Judgment & Order dated 31.01.2009 of the High 
Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in MFA No. 7617 of 2003(MV). 
and MFA. Crob. No. 218 of 2004(MV). 
S.N. Bhat for the Appellant. 
Shakil Ahmed Syed, K.L. Nandwani for the Respondents. 
The Order of the Court was delivered by 
H.L. DATTTU, J. 1. Leave granted. 
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties to the lis and 
perused the record. 
B 
c 
3. This appeal is directed against the Judgment and order 
passed by the High Court of Karnataka in MFA No. 7617 of D 
2003 and MFA Crob. No. 218 of 2004, whereby the High Court 
has reduced the compensation awarded by Motor Accident 
Claims Tribunal (in short, "Tribunal"), passed in MVC No. 329 
of 2003 and the cross objection of the claimant for 
enhancement of compensation is dismissed. 
4. The appellanUclaimant had filed the petition under 
Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation of 
Rs. 20,00,000/- with interest in view of the injuries sustained 
by him in a road accident. The claimant was a private contractor 
E 
and he was aged about 32 years on the date of the accident 
F 
and his monthly income was stated to be Rs. 12000/-. The 
vehicle was insured with M/s United India Insurance Company 
Ltd. (in short, "Insurance Company"), which did not seriously 
dispute the nature of injuries sustained by the claimant in the 
accident. He had sustained the fracture of condylar and 
proximal 1/3 of right fibula. The Tribunal, taking into 
G 
consideration the nature of injuries sustained, the loss of future 
income on account of disability and other factors, had assessed 
· the total compensation of Rs. 4,06,400/- (Rupees Four Lakhs 
Six Thousand FOur Hundred only) with interest at 8% p.a. on 
Rs.3,98,400/- from the date of petition till realization. 
H 
278 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2011) 10 $.C.R. 
A 
5. The Insurance Company, being aggrieved by the order 
of the Tribunal, had preferred an appeal before the.High Court. 
The claimant had also filed cross objection for enhancement 
of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 
6. The High Court, by the impugned Judgment and order, 
8 has reduced the compensation to Rs. 2,82,600/- (Rupees Two 
Lakhs Eighty Two Thousand Six Hundred only) with interest at 
6% p.a. from the date of petition till its realization. While doing 
so, to say the least, the High Court has not stated any reasons 
whatsoever. It has mechanically juggled with the arithmetical 
C calculation made by the Tribunal while modifying a well 
considered and reasoned order passed by the Tribunal. In our 
view, the High Court, while tinkering with the conclusion 
reached by the Tribunal, should have assigned reasons in 
support of its conclusion. It is time and again said that the
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.