# RAVIRAJ UDUPA v. M/S UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. & ORS

- **Citation:** [2011] 10 S.C.R. 276
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2011-08-16
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal Nos. 7074-7-5 of 2011
- **Bench:** G. S. Singhvi, H.L. Dattu
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/raviraj-udupa-v-m-s-united-india-insurance-company-ltd-ors-27116
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988:
C
s. 166 - Compensation for injuries suffered - Private
contractor, aged 32 years and earning Rs.12,0001- per month
met, with a motor accident - Tribunal considering the nature
of injuries sustained, loss of future income on account of
disability and other factors, awarded compensation of
D Rs.4,06,4001- with 8% interest- High Court without recording
reasons reduced the amount to Rs.2,82,6001- with 6% interest
- HELD: 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 tl1e links between the materials on which certain
E 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, exclude
the chances to reach arbitrary, whimsical or capricious
F decision or conclusion - There is no legal infirmity with the
order passed by the Tribunal and the findings and the
conclusions reached by it while assessing the entitlement of
the claimant for compensation for the injury sustained by him
are upheld -
The judgment and order passed by the High
G Court is reversed and the judgment and awarded passed by
the Tribunal restored - Judgments/Orders - Reasons for -
compensation.
H
276
RAVIRAJ UDUPA v. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE
277
COMPANY LTD. & ORS.

## Text

[2011] 10 S.C.R. 276
A
RAVIRAJ UDUPA
B
v.
M/S UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. & ORS.
(Civil Appeal Nos. 7074-7-5 of 2011)
•'
AUGUST 16, 2011
[G. S. SINGHVI AND H.L. DATTU, JJ.]
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988:
C
s. 166 - Compensation for injuries suffered - Private
contractor, aged 32 years and earning Rs.12,0001- per month
met, with a motor accident - Tribunal considering the nature
of injuries sustained, loss of future income on account of
disability and other factors, awarded compensation of
D Rs.4,06,4001- with 8% interest- High Court without recording
reasons reduced the amount to Rs.2,82,6001- with 6% interest
- HELD: 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 tl1e links between the materials on which certain
E 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, exclude
the chances to reach arbitrary, whimsical or capricious
F decision or conclusion - There is no legal infirmity with the
order passed by the Tribunal and the findings and the
conclusions reached by it while assessing the entitlement of
the claimant for compensation for the injury sustained by him
are upheld -
The judgment and order passed by the High
G Court is reversed and the judgment and awarded passed by
the Tribunal restored - Judgments/Orders - Reasons for -
compensation.
H
276
RAVIRAJ UDUPA v. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE
277
COMPANY LTD. & ORS.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos.
A
7074-7075 o.f 2011.
From the Judgment & Order dated 31.01.2009 of the High
Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in MFA No. 7617 of 2003(MV).
and MFA. Crob. No. 218 of 2004(MV).
S.N. Bhat for the Appellant.
Shakil Ahmed Syed, K.L. Nandwani for the Respondents.
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.
B
c
3. This appeal is directed against the Judgment and order
passed by the High Court of Karnataka in MFA No. 7617 of D
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 appellanUclaimant 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
E
and he was aged about 32 years on the date of the accident
F
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
G
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.
H
278
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2011) 10 $.C.R.
A
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,
8 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
C 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
D 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
E 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
F 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
G 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.
H RP.
Appeal allowed.