REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL  APPEAL No.5932  OF 2019

(Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No.670 of 2019)

Rupa Roy ….Appellant(s)

VERSUS

The New India Assurance Company Ltd. & Anr.               ….Respondent(s)

                 J U D G M E N T

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 appeal filed

1

by the appellant herein and affirmed the award

dated  16.02.2008  passed  by the  Motor  Accident

Claims Tribunal & District Judge, Nadia in  M.A.C.

Case No.3 of 2005.  

3. A few facts need to be mentioned hereinbelow

for the disposal of this appeal,  which involves a

short point.

4. The appellant is the claimant (applicant) and

the respondents are the non­applicants in the claim

petition filed before the Motor Accident Claims

Tribunal  (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal”)

out of which this appeal arises.

5. On 19.07.2004, when the appellant with her

husband and minor son –  Sourangshu was going

towards Gachha Bazar Bus Stoppage on a rickshaw

van, one  Matador van bearing  No.  WB 57/5270

came on a high speed from opposite side and

dashed the rickshaw van as a result of which all the

2

occupants of the rickshaw van suffered serious

injuries.

6. The appellant's  minor son­Sourangshu aged

around 10 years, who was travelling with the

appellant­his mother, suffered multiple injuries on

his  body.  He was taken to  the hospital  where he

received the treatment for a long time. After

treatment, it was certified that he was

Orthopedically disabled with post­traumatic

paraplegia and  weakness in his right hand. The

permanent disability in his body was diagnosed to

the extent of 70% due to injuries caused to him in

the accident.  

7. This gave rise to filing of the claim petition by

the appellant against the respondents, i.e.,

owner/driver  and insurer  of the  offending vehicle

under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act,

1988(hereinafter  referred to as  “the Act”)  claiming

3

compensation for the disabilities caused to her son

due to injuries.

8. It was  inter alia  alleged that the accident

occurred due to rash and negligent driving of  the

driver/owner of the offending vehicle­respondent

No. 2 and that it was insured with respondent No. 1

on the date of accident. It was alleged that due to

permanent disability suffered by the appellant's

son, the appellant is entitled to claim suitable

compensation for him.

9. The respondents contested the claim. By

award dated 16.02.2008, the Tribunal partly

allowed the appellant's claim petition and awarded a

compensation of   Rs. 2,00,000/­   to the appellant.

The appellant felt aggrieved and filed an appeal

before the  High  Court at  Calcutta.  By impugned

order, the High Court dismissed the appeal which

gives rise to filing of the present appeal by way of

4

special leave by the appellant (claimant) in this

Court.

10. Heard Mr. Rauf Rahim, learned counsel for the

appellant and Mr. A. Jain, learned counsel for

respondent No.1.

11. Having  heard the learned counsel for the

parties and on perusal of the record of the case, we

are  inclined to allow the appeal and while setting

aside the impugned order modify the award passed

by the Tribunal and accordingly enhance the

compensation to the extent indicated hereinbelow in

favour of the appellant.

12. On perusal of the impugned order, we find that

the High Court did not assign any reason for

dismissal of the appellant’s appeal, which reads as

under:

“We have gone through the award so pronounced by the  Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and we are of the opinion that there

5

is no perversity or illegality in the award so passed by the Tribunal.”

13. In our view, 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. In

the absence of  any discussion and the reasoning,

we are at a loss to know as to what persuaded the

High Court to dismiss the appeal.

14. An appeal filed under Section 173 of the Act is

akin to Section 96 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908

(hereinafter referred to as “the Code”). 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

this Court in the case of Uttar Pradesh State Road

6

Transport Corporation vs. Mamta & Ors., (2016) 4

SCC 172, G. Saraswathi & Ors. vs. Rathinammal

& Ors.,  (2018) 3 SCC 340 and   Central Board of

Trustees vs. Indore Composite Pvt. Ltd., (2018) 8

SCC 443.

15.  In our view, 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 we are 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  victim­minor  son of the

appellant and the extent of permanent disability

suffered by him on account of the injuries caused to

him.

7

16. Therefore, the only question, which is involved

in this  appeal, is  whether the  Courts  below were

justified in awarding a sum of Rs.2,00,000/­ to the

appellant(claimant) for the injuries sustained by her

minor son. So far as the other issue is concerned,

such as liability of the Insurance Company, the

same need not be considered because the Insurance

Company has not questioned it.  

17. On perusal of  the evidence, we find 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.

18. 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

8

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.

19. We accordingly consider it just and proper to

award a lump sum amount of Rs10,00,000/­ to the

appellant ­ she being the mother of victim.   It will

enable her to take care of her son and for his

upbringing and also towards the amount which the

appellant and her husband has so far spent on the

treatment of their son and is required to spent in

future. While awarding the lump sum amount, we

have taken into account all the aforementioned

factors, which are relevant.

20. The sum awarded by this Court

(Rs.10,00,000/­) would carry 6% interest which will

9

be  payable to the  appellant from  the  date  of the

impugned order of the High Court. Respondent

No. 1 would pay the awarded sum to the appellant

after adjusting Rs.2,00,000/­ together with interest

awarded by the Tribunal, if already paid to the

appellant.  Let the  amount  be  worked  out  and be

paid as awarded by this Court within 3 months.

21. The appeal is accordingly allowed.   The

impugned order is set aside. Counsel fees

Rs.10,000/­ payable by respondent No.1 to the

appellant.

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

    …...……..................................J.              [INDU MALHOTRA]

New Delhi; July 29, 2019

10