SUDARSAN PUHAN versus JAYANTA KU. MOHANTY & ANR. ETC.

Citation: [2018] 12 S.C.R. 1101 · Decided: 20-09-2018 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE · Disposal: Case Partly allowed
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 4 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1101
SUDARSAN PUHAN
v.
JAYANTA KU. MOHANTY & ANR. ETC.
(Civil Appeal Nos. 3798-3799 of 2016)
SEPTEMBER 20, 2018
[ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE AND S. ABDUL NAZEER, JJ.]
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – s.173 – Appeal under – Appellant-
claimant while going on a motorcycle met with an accident and
suffered severe injuries – He filed claim petition u/s.166 of MV Act
before the Tribunal against the respondents (owner of the motorcycle
and the Insurance company) – Tribunal awarded a total sum of
Rs.24,62,065/- compensation to the claimant, holding the
respondents liable for payment – Both claimant and the Insurance
company filed appeal before the High Court – High Court allowed
the appeal filed by the Insurance company in part and reduced the
compensation from Rs.24,62,065/- to Rs.20,00,000/-  – Aggrieved,
only claimant filed appeal – Held: An appeal before the High Court
u/s.173 of MV Act is essentially in the nature of first appeal like
s.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 – In instant case, it was
the duty of the High Court to decide the appeals keeping in view
the requirements of Or.XX, r.4(2) r/w Or.XLI, r.31 of CPC which
requires that judgment/order shall contain a concise statement of
the case, points for determination, decisions thereon and the
reasons – However, the High Court neither set out the facts of the
case of the parties in detail, nor dealt with any of the submissions
urged by them, nor took note of the grounds raised by the claimant
and nor made any attempt to appreciate the evidence in the light of
the settled legal principles applicable to the issues arising in the
present case – Thus, matter remanded to the High Court to examine
the question as to whether any case for further enhancement in the
quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal made out or not
and, if so, on what grounds – Furthermore, as the Insurance
Company chose not to file any appeal against the impugned order
of the High Court, therefore, claimant alone will have right to
 [2018] 12 S.C.R. 1101
1101
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1102
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 12 S.C.R.
prosecute his appeal on merits after remand of the case to the High
Court – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 –s.96, Or.XX, r.4(2) r/w
Or.XLI, r.31.
Partly allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. The order of the High Court would show that the
High Court neither set out the facts of the case of the parties in
detail, nor dealt with any of the submissions urged except to
mention them, nor took note of the grounds raised by the claimant
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 and proceeded to allow the appeal filed by the Insurance
Company and reduced the compensation from Rs.24,62,065/- to
Rs.20,00,000/-. [Para 34][1111-D-E]
2. The High Court only observed “Considering the
submissions of the learned counsel for the parties” and “I  feel that
compensation should have been awarded as  Rs.20,00,000/- and
not Rs.24,62,065/-”. No reasons were given by the  High Court
as to why the amount of compensation should be reduced from
Rs.24,62,065/- to Rs.20,00,000/- and why it cannot be enhanced.
Since the appellant-claimant had also filed appeal for enhancement
of the compensation, the entire controversy was again open for
decision before the High Court at the instance of  the claimant
and Insurance Company.  It was, therefore, necessary for the
High Court to assign the reasons for not granting enhancement
of compensation and/or its reduction. [Para 35] [1111-F-G]
3.  The Insurance Company did not choose to file any special
leave to appeal in this Court against the impugned order of the
High Court. The effect of non-filing of appeal is that the Insurance
Company has in principle accepted the High Court’s order.
[Para 36] [1111-H; 1112-A]
4. In this view of the matter, the appellant-claimant alone
will have a right to prosecute his appeal on merits before the
High Court after remand of the case by this Court wherein the
High Court will examine the question as to whether any case for
further enhancement in the quantum of compensation awarded
by the Tribunal is made out or not and, if so, on what grounds.
[Para 38] [1112-D]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1103
B. V Nagesh & Anr. v. H.V. Sreenivasa Murthy (2010)
13 SCC 530 : [2010] 11 SCR 784 ; Santosh Hazari v.
Purushott
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.