Page 1

RAVIRAJ UDUPA v.

M/S UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. & ORS. (Civil Appeal No. 7074-75 of 2011)

AUGUST 16, 2011 [G. S. Singhvi and H.L. Dattu, JJ.]

[2011] 10 SCR 276

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.

3. This appeal is directed against the Judgment and order passed by the  

High Court of Karnataka in MFA No. 7617 of 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 appellant/claimant 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 and he was aged about 32 years on the date of the  

accident 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  

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.

Page 2

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, 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 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 reasons are the links between the materials on which certain  

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,  

excludes the chances to reach arbitrary, whimsical or capricious decision or  

conclusion. Therefore, we cannot agree with the conclusion reached by the  

High Court, which does not have supporting reasons.

7. We have carefully considered the findings and the conclusions reached  

by the Tribunal while assessing the entitlement of the claimant for  

compensation for the injury sustained by him. In our considered view, we do  

not find any legal infirmity with the order passed by the Tribunal. Therefore,  

while reversing the Judgment and order passed by the High Court in MFA No.  

7617 of 2003, we restore the Judgment and award passed by the Tribunal  

dated 29.08.2003.

8. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed. Costs are made easy.