Merely Recording Issue As 'Not Pressed' By Counsel Cannot Substitute Reasoned Adjudication Under Section 168 MV Act: Allahabad High Court

"Mere recital that an issue was “not pressed”, without examining its legal and factual consequence, cannot substitute a reasoned determination of the issue." In a ruling delineating the mandatory adjudicatory duties of Motor Accident Claims Tribunals, the Allahabad High Court bench of Justice Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi on October 27, 2026, held that a Tribunal cannot answer duly framed issues in the negative merely based on a concession or statement by a party's counsel that an issue is "not pressed". High Court ruled that under Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 read with the Uttar Pradesh Motor Vehicle Rules, 1998, the Tribunal is statutorily obligated to render a reasoned determination on every framed issue, and private concessions cannot dispense with statutory duties enacted in the interest of social welfare.

The factual matrix arose out of a fatal road accident on June 30, 2001, where Jamuna Devi was struck from behind by a bus contracted with the Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (UPSRTC) and later succumbed to her injuries. Her husband and sons instituted a claim petition under Sections 166 and 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, leading the Tribunal to award compensation of Rs. 1,69,500 with 5% interest against UPSRTC while ex-parte proceedings were drawn against the registered owner. While deciding the claim, the Tribunal answered the issues concerning the liability of the bus owner and insurer in the negative merely because counsel for UPSRTC stated that he did not press those issues, prompting UPSRTC to file an appeal alongside a delayed cross-objection filed by the claimants under Order 41 Rule 22 CPC.

The core legal issues before the Court were whether a Claims Tribunal can decide duly framed issues in the negative solely upon a counsel's statement of not pressing them without an independent adjudication on merits, and whether statutory notice and determination of insurer liability under Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 can be defeated by applying the principle of waiver.

Framing and determining issues is an imperative judicial duty

Scrutinizing the statutory architecture, the High Court observed that Rules 209, 211, and 220 of the U.P. Motor Vehicle Rules, 1998 read with the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 mandate the Tribunal to record evidence and render concise findings with reasons on every issue framed. The Court underscored that framing of issues narrows the controversy and forms the foundation of any judicial proceeding, making its determination unavoidable.

Counsel's concession does not amount to waiver of statutory provisions

Addressing the effect of counsel abandoning a plea, the Court clarified that non-pressing of an issue arising directly from the pleadings cannot automatically be calculated as an absolute waiver by the party. Placing reliance on established precedents, the bench emphasized that waiver is a question of fact requiring conscious relinquishment and cannot be lightly inferred to bypass statutory mandates.

Public interest and social welfare statutes override private waiver

The Court highlighted that the Motor Vehicles Act is a beneficial and social welfare legislation conceived to ensure that victims or their dependents receive actual compensation rather than illusory promises. It reiterated that while an individual may waive a private statutory privilege enacted solely for their personal benefit, a bald plea of waiver cannot override or defeat provisions founded on public policy.

Tribunal has an inescapable duty to issue statutory notice to insurers

Examining Section 168(1) of the Act and Rule 207 of the U.P. Motor Vehicle Rules, the bench held that the requirement of issuing notice to the insurer uses the mandatory term "shall" and creates an affirmative duty on the Tribunal. Such a statutory obligation is not anchored upon private rights and cannot be abdicated simply because a party failed to press an issue or sought to abandon it.

Contextual meaning of 'not pressed' requires reasoned examination

The Court held that the phrase "not pressed" is purely contextual and cannot act as a substantive answer to a framed legal dispute. Because questions surrounding indemnification and apportionment of liability among the owner, insurer, and transport corporation directly affect the grant of just compensation, the Tribunal's omission to adjudicate them on merits vitiated the award.

Turning to the cross-objection filed by the claimants under Order 41 Rule 22 CPC seeking enhancement of compensation, the Court noted an unexplained delay of 2 years, 7 months, and 18 days beyond the statutory limitation period. Finding that the claimants failed to show sufficient cause under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, the High Court dismissed the cross-objection as time-barred, while clarifying that dismissal does not extinguish the claimants' substantive right to claim just compensation before the Tribunal upon remand.

Consequently, the High Court partly allowed the appeal, set aside the Tribunal's findings on Issue Nos. 2, 3, 4, and 5, and remitted the claim petition back to the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Barabanki for fresh adjudication on merits after hearing all parties, including the insurer.

Date of Decision: October 27, 2026