RAVIRAJ UDUPAversusM/S UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. & ORS.

                       [2011] 10 S.C.R. 276


A                        RAVIRAJ UDUPA
                                 v.
    M/S UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. & ORS.
             (Civil Appeal Nos. 7074-7-5 of 2011)
               •'       AUGUST 16, 2011
B
              [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.


                                276
H
    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).
                                                                       B
     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.                                 c
    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               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.
                                                                       E
       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
  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.