Court holds that mere statement of "not pressed" by counsel cannot substitute reasoned judicial determination; insurer must remain party to proceedings; delayed cross-objection for compensation enhancement dismissed as time-barred
In a significant judgment delivered on October 27, 2026, the Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) under Justice Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi set aside certain portions of a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal award and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication. The case involved the claim petition filed by Basant Lal and others for compensation following the death of Jamuna Devi in a road accident involving a bus allegedly under contract with the Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (UPSRTC).
The Tribunal had awarded Rs. 1,69,500 to the claimants but decided several critical issues-relating to liability and entitlement-based solely on the appellant Corporation's counsel stating those issues were "not pressed," without delivering reasoned findings. The High Court found this approach legally impermissible, emphasizing that once issues are framed based on pleadings, the Tribunal must record evidence and provide reasoned decisions on each issue. A bare recital of "not pressed" cannot substitute judicial adjudication.
Further, the Court underscored the statutory mandate under Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and the relevant U.P. Motor Vehicles Rules, 1998, which require the Claims Tribunal to issue notice to the insurer and give all parties an opportunity to be heard. The Court held that the insurer's presence cannot be dispensed with merely because parties chose not to press certain issues; the insurer must continue as a party in the remanded proceedings.
The appellant UPSRTC challenged its liability, asserting that according to the contract with the bus owner, the liability rested exclusively with the owner and insurer. However, the Tribunal had found negligence on the part of the bus driver. The High Court did not decide on the merits of liability but remanded the case for fresh adjudication, directing the Tribunal to treat the insurer as a party and afford all parties full opportunity to present their cases.
Separately, the claimants had filed a cross-objection seeking enhancement of the compensation amount. The High Court rejected this application as barred by limitation since it was filed more than two years late without sufficient cause for the delay. However, the Court made it clear that the claimants' substantive right to claim just compensation before the Tribunal remains open in the remanded proceedings.
This judgment reaffirms the procedural safeguards and statutory obligations in motor accident claims proceedings under the Motor Vehicles Act and cautions tribunals against shortcuts that may undermine justice. It also highlights the public interest nature of such claims, ensuring that statutory provisions for notice and adjudication are not waived lightly.
Bottom Line:
Motor Accident Claims - Tribunal cannot decide framed issues merely as "not pressed" without reasoned adjudication - In claim proceedings under Motor Vehicles Act, notice to insurer and determination of liability are statutory obligations and cannot be defeated by waiver - Matter remanded for fresh decision; delayed cross-objection for enhancement dismissed as time-barred.
Statutory provision(s):
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 Sections 166, 163A, 168, 149; U.P. Motor Vehicles Rules, 1998 Rules 207, 209, 211, 220, 221; Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 Order 41 Rule 22; Limitation Act, 1963 Section 5
U.P. Rajya Sadak Parivahan Nigam v. Basant Lal, (Allahabad)(Lucknow) : Law Finder Doc Id # 3006277
