Page 1

Reportable

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.1425 OF 2016 (ARISING OUT OF SLP(C) NO.21125/2015)

U.P.S.R.T.C.            Appellant(s)

VERSUS

Km. Mamta & Ors. Respondent(s)

                 J U D G M E N T

Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.

1) Leave granted.  

2) This  appeal  is  filed  by  the

defendant/appellant-Corporation  against  the

judgment/order  dated  28.05.2014  passed  by  the

Division Bench of the High Court of Allahabad in First

Appeal from Order No. 1681 of 2014, which in turn,

1

Page 2

arises out of  an Award dated 18.02.2014 passed by

the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal/District Judge (in

short ‘the Tribunal’), Hathras, Uttar Pradesh in MACT

No. 131 of 2010.

3) In order to appreciate the short issue involved in

this  appeal,  it  is  necessary  to  state  a  few  relevant

facts:

4) The  respondents-Claimant(Plaintiffs)  filed  a

Claim Petition  under  Sections  140 and  166 of  the

Motor  Vehicles  Act,  1988  (in  short  ‘the  M.V.  Act’)

against the appellant-Corporation before the Tribunal,

Hathras  claiming  compensation  to  the  tune  of

Rs.36,35,880/-  for  the  death  of  one  Raj  Kumar

Gautam, who died in a vehicular accident.  According

to  the  respondents,  on  22.09.2010,  Raj  Kumar

Gautam-the deceased while going on his Motor Cycle

bearing No. UP-86F-9224 on Hathras-Agra road near a

place called ‘Ghas Mandi’  was hit by the appellant’s

bus bearing Registration No. UP-14-AB-9038.

2

Page 3

5) It was,  inter alia,   alleged that the offending bus

was coming on wrong side with high speed and hit the

motor cycle, which was being driven by the deceased,

on the right side of the road.  The deceased who was

aged 49 years sustained extensive injuries and later

succumbed to the injuries which gave rise to the filing

of  the  claim  petition  by  his  legal  representatives

(respondents  herein)  claiming  compensation  for  the

untimely  death  of  Raj  Kumar  Gautam.   The

respondents also pleaded the details regarding loss of

income and other  particulars necessary for  claiming

compensation in the claim petition.

6) The appellant-Corporation filed written statement

and contested the claim petition.  One of the grounds

taken  in  the  defence  was  that  of  contributory

negligence  on  the  part  of  the  deceased  also  while

driving the motor cycle which resulted in the accident.

7) The Tribunal, by award dated 18.02.2014, partly

allowed the claim petition and awarded a total sum of

3

Page 4

Rs.24,73,252/-  along  with  interest  @  6%  p.a.  from

date of filing till its realization to the respondents.

8) Challenging  the  said  Award,  the

appellant-Corporation filed an appeal before the High

Court.   By  impugned  order  dated  28.05.2014,  the

Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the appeal

and upheld the award of the Tribunal.

9) Against the said order, the appellant-Corporation

has filed this appeal by way of special leave.

10) Learned  Counsel  for  the  appellant-Corporation

while  assailing  the  legality  and  correctness  of  the

impugned  order  contended  that  the  High  Court

without  adverting  to  all  the  factual  details  and

grounds raised in the appeal, disposed of the appeal in

a cryptic manner.  According to learned counsel,  the

High Court neither set out  the facts,  nor dealt  with

any  issue,  nor  appreciated  the  ocular  and

documentary  evidence  in  its  proper  perspective,  nor

examined the legal principles applicable to the issues

4

Page 5

arising in the case and nor rendered its findings on

contentious  issues  decided  by  the  Tribunal  though

urged by the appellant in support of the appeal.  

11) Learned  counsel  further  contended  that  it  was

the duty of the High Court exercising its first appellate

powers under Section 173 of the M.V. Act to have dealt

with  all  the  submissions  urged  by  the

appellant-Corporation  and  after  appreciating  the

entire  evidence  should  have  come  to  its  own

conclusion one way or the other keeping in view the

legal  principles  governing  the  issues.   It  was  urged

that  since  it  was  not  done  by  the  High  Court,  a

jurisdictional  error  is  committed  by  the  High  Court

which  renders  the  impugned  judgment  legally

unsustainable. Lastly, the learned counsel urged that

if his arguments are accepted, the remand of the case

to  the  High  Court  to  decide  the  appeal  afresh  on

merits is inevitable.

5

Page 6

12) Learned  counsel  for  the  respondents,  however,

supported the impugned order and urged that it does

not call for any interference.

13) Having heard the learned counsel for the parties

and on perusal of the record of the case, we find force

in  the  submission  of  the  learned  counsel  for  the

appellant-Corporation.  

14) The  powers  of  the  first  appellate  Court  while

deciding  the  first  appeal  are  indeed  well  defined  by

various  judicial  pronouncements  of  this  Court  and

are, therefore, no more res integra.  

15) As far  back in 1969,  the learned Judge – V.R.

Krishna Iyer, J (as His Lordship then was the judge of

Kerala  High  Court)  while  deciding  the  first  appeal

under Section 96 of the CPC in  Kurian Chacko vs.

Varkey Ouseph, AIR  1969 Kerala 316, reminded the

first  appellate  court  of  its  duty  to  decide  the  first

appeal. In his distinctive style of writing with subtle

power of expression, the learned judge held as under:  

6

Page 7

“1.  The  plaintiff,  unsuccessful  in  two Courts,  has  come  up  here  aggrieved  by  the dismissal  of  his  suit  which  was  one  for declaration of title and recovery of possession. The  defendant  disputed  the  plaintiff's  title  to the property as also his possession and claimed both in himself. The learned Munsif, who tried the suit, recorded findings against the plaintiff both on title and possession. But, in appeal, the learned  Subordinate  Judge  disposed  of  the whole  matter  glibly  and  briefly,  in  a  few sentences. 2.  An appellate court is the final Court of fact ordinarily and therefore a litigant is entitled to a full and fair and independent consideration of the  evidence  at  the  appellate  stage.  Anything less than this is unjust to him and I have no doubt  that  in  the  present  case  the  learned Subordinate Judge has fallen far short of what is expected of him as an appellate Court. Although there is furious contest between the counsel for the  appellant  and  for  the  respondent,  they appear to agree with me in this observation…..”

           (Emphasis supplied)

16) This  Court  also  in  various cases  reiterated the

aforesaid principle and laid down the powers of  the

appellate  Court  under  Section 96 of  the Code while

deciding the first appeal.

17) We consider it  apposite to refer to some of the

decisions.   

7

Page 8

18) In  Santosh  Hazari  vs.  Purushottam  Tiwari

(Deceased) by L.Rs. (2001) 3 SCC 179, this Court held

(at pages 188-189) as under:

“.……..the  appellate  court  has  jurisdiction  to reverse or affirm the findings of the trial court. First appeal is a valuable right of the parties and unless  restricted  by  law,  the  whole  case  is therein open for rehearing both on questions of fact  and  law.  The  judgment  of  the  appellate court  must,  therefore,  reflect  its  conscious application  of  mind  and  record  findings supported by reasons, on all the issues arising along  with  the  contentions  put  forth,  and pressed  by  the  parties  for  decision  of  the appellate  court……while  reversing a finding of fact the appellate court must come into close quarters with the reasoning assigned by the trial court  and  then  assign  its  own  reasons  for arriving at a different finding. This would satisfy the court hearing a further appeal that the first appellate  court  had  discharged  the  duty expected of it…………”  

19) The  above  view was  followed by  a  three-Judge

Bench decision of this Court in Madhukar & Ors. v.

Sangram & Ors.,(2001) 4 SCC 756, wherein it was

reiterated that sitting as a court of first appeal, it is

the duty of the High Court to deal with all the issues

and the evidence led by the parties before recording its

findings.

8

Page 9

20) In  H.K.N.  Swami v.  Irshad  Basith,(2005)  10

SCC 243, this Court (at p. 244) stated as under: (SCC

para 3)

“3.  The  first  appeal  has  to  be  decided  on facts  as  well  as  on  law.  In  the  first  appeal parties  have  the  right  to  be  heard  both  on questions of law as also on facts and the first appellate court is required to address itself  to all issues and decide the case by giving reasons. Unfortunately,  the  High Court,  in  the  present case  has  not  recorded  any  finding  either  on facts  or  on  law.  Sitting  as  the  first  appellate court it was the duty of the High Court to deal with all the issues and the evidence led by the parties  before  recording  the  finding  regarding title.”

21) Again in Jagannath v. Arulappa & Anr., (2005)  

12 SCC 303, while considering the scope of Section 96 of  

the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, this Court (at pp.  

303-04) observed as follows: (SCC para 2)

“2. A court of first appeal can reappreciate the entire  evidence  and  come  to  a  different conclusion……...”

22) Again  in  B.V  Nagesh  &  Anr. vs.  H.V.

Sreenivasa Murthy, (2010) 13 SCC 530, this Court

taking note of all the earlier judgments of this court

9

Page 10

reiterated  the  aforementioned  principle  with  these

words:

“3. How  the  regular  first  appeal  is  to  be disposed of by the appellate court/High Court has  been  considered  by  this  Court  in  various decisions. Order 41 CPC deals with appeals from original decrees. Among the various rules, Rule 31 mandates that the judgment of the appellate court shall state:

(a) the points for determination; (b) the decision thereon; (c) the reasons for the decision; and (d)  where  the  decree  appealed  from  is

reversed  or  varied,  the  relief  to  which  the appellant is entitled.

4. The  appellate  court  has  jurisdiction  to reverse or affirm the findings of the trial court. The first appeal is a valuable right of the parties and unless restricted by law, the whole case is therein open for rehearing both on questions of fact  and  law.  The  judgment  of  the  appellate court  must,  therefore,  reflect  its  conscious application  of  mind  and  record  findings supported by reasons, on all the issues arising along  with  the  contentions  put  forth,  and pressed  by  the  parties  for  decision  of  the appellate  court.  Sitting  as  a  court  of  first appeal, it was the duty of the High Court to deal with all the issues and the evidence led by the parties  before recording its  findings.  The first appeal is a valuable right and the parties have a right to be heard both on questions of law and on facts and the judgment in the first  appeal must address itself to all the issues of law and fact and decide it by giving reasons in support of  the  findings.  (Vide  Santosh  Hazari v. Purushottam Tiwari,  (2001)  3  SCC  179  at  p.

10

Page 11

188, para 15 and Madhukar v. Sangram, (2001) 4 SCC 756 at p. 758, para 5.)

5. In view of the above salutary principles, on going through the impugned judgment, we feel that the High Court has failed to discharge the obligation placed on it as a first appellate court. In  our  view,  the  judgment  under  appeal  is cryptic and none of the relevant aspects have even been noticed. The appeal has been decided in an unsatisfactory manner. Our careful perusal of  the  judgment  in  the  regular  first  appeal shows that it falls short of considerations which are  expected  from  the  court  of  first  appeal. Accordingly,  without  going  into  the  merits  of the  claim  of  both  parties,  we  set  aside  the impugned  judgment  and  decree  of  the  High Court and remand the regular first appeal to the High Court for its fresh disposal in accordance with law.”

23) The  aforementioned  cases  were  relied  upon  by

this  Court  while  reiterating  the  same  principle  in

State  Bank  of  India  &  Anr. vs.  Emmsons

International Ltd. & Anr., (2011) 12 SCC 174.

24) An appeal under Section 173 of the M.V. Act is

essentially in the nature of first appeal alike Section

96  of  the  Code  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.   [See  National

11

Page 12

Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Naresh Kumar & Ors.

((2000) 10 SCC 198 and State of Punjab & Anr. vs.

Navdeep Kuur & Ors. (2004) 13 SCC 680].

25) Coming now to the facts of the case in hand,  we

consider it appropriate to reproduce the whole order of

the High Court infra:

“The  only  ground  urged  is  that  there  was contributory  negligence also  on the part  of the  deceased  and  therefore,  the compensation  awarded  should  have  been reduced  proportionately.   We  have  perused the site plan and we find that the accident occurred on a crossing.  The site plan clearly indicates that the offending vehicle namely the Bus was on the right side of the road left no scope for the deceased who was traveling on the left side of the road.  Consequently, we  are  of  the  opinion  that  there  was  no contributory  negligence  on  the  part  of  the deceased  at  the  time  when  the  accident occurred.  The appeal fails and is dismissed.’

26) Mere  perusal  of  the  afore-quoted  order  of  the

High Court would show that the High Court neither

set out the facts of the case of the parties, nor dealt

with any of the submissions urged, nor took note of

the grounds raised by the appellant and nor made any

attempt to appreciate the evidence in the light of the

12

Page 13

settled legal principles applicable to the issues arising

in the case to find out as to whether the  award of the

Tribunal is legally sustainable or not and if so, how,

and if not, why?  

27) As observed supra, as a first appellate Court, it

was the duty of the High Court to have decided the

appeal keeping in view the powers conferred on it by

the statute. The impugned judgment also does not, in

our opinion, satisfy the requirements of Order XX Rule

4 (2) read with Order XLI Rule 31 of the Code which

requires  that  judgment  shall  contain  a  concise

statement  of  the  case,  points  for  determination,

decisions  thereon  and  the  reasons.  It  is  for  this

reason,  we  are  unable  to  uphold  the  impugned

judgment of the High Court.  

28) The  appeal  thus  succeeds  and  is  accordingly

allowed in part. The impugned judgment is set aside.  

29) As  a  necessary  consequence,  the  case  is

remanded to the High Court for deciding the appeal

13

Page 14

afresh on merits, keeping in view the principle of law

laid down by this Court quoted above.

30) However,  we  make  it  clear  that  we  have  not

applied our mind to the merits of the issues involved

in the case and hence the High Court would decide the

appeal  strictly  in  accordance  with  law  on  merits

uninfluenced by our observations. Needless to observe,

the  High  Court  will  do  so  after  affording  an

opportunity of hearing to both the parties.  We request

the High Court to decide the appeal preferably within

six months. No costs.

                                    .……...................................J.                     [J. CHELAMESWAR]                  

                    ………..................................J.                      [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE]

New Delhi, February 12, 2016.

14