RUPA ROY versus THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD. & ANR.

Citation: [2019] 10 S.C.R. 327 · Decided: 29-07-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

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

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.