NAHAR SINGH Vs. MANOHAR KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Who is a "person ag-grieved" within the meaning of Sec. 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act (for short the Act). Is he any Tom, Dick and Harry or whose interests stand prejudicially effected by the award ? What should be his qualifications to get him this status. An answer to these questions will decide the fate of this appeal. Section 110-D of the Act reads thus :- "Appeal :-(1) Subject to the provisions of Sub-Section (2), any person aggrieved by an award of Claims Tribunal may within 90 days from the date of award prefer an appeal to the High Court." As it is, the expression "person aggrieved" defies an exact definition. Its meaning varies with the context of statutes wherein it occurs and depends upon diverse and varied factors. This is not to suggest that it admits of no fair interpretation, but to underscore the elusive-ness of the concept which has constrained the courts to define it variedly. Sometimes liber-ally and at other times rigidly depending upon the circumstances of the case. Taking the word as it is understood in common parlance a "person aggrieved" should include a person whose interests are prejudicially affected by a decision - a person who has a genuine grievance that the decision has adversely hit him, denied him something which was otherwise legally due to him and has imposed some burden on him to be discharged.

(2.) These broad tests have been deduced by the courts from time to time depending upon the nature of the statute in the context of which the expression is required to be inter-preted. In Buxton v. Minister of Housing and Local Govt., (1961) 1 QB 278, the words were given a restricted meaning and it was held that the expression "person aggrieved" meant a person who has suffered a legal grievance and against whom a decision has been pronounc-ed which has wrongfully deprived him of something or wrongfully refused him some-thing or wrongfully affected his title to something. In King v. Middlex Justice it was further clarified that the person should be immediately aggrieved and not consequently aggrieved. A nominal or speculative adverse effect on the right or interest of a person is insufficient.

(3.) The legal position on the point has proceeded, by a large, on similar lines in our country also. In this regard it should suffice to briefly extract the ratio of the judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in AIR 1976 SC 578: