Supreme Court Slams Hyderabad MACT For Handwriting Orders Despite E-Courts Project, Asks Telangana HC To Check Computer Availability And Ensure Typed Order Sheets
Kiran Raj
The Supreme Court Division Bench of Justice Rajesh Bindal and Justice Vijay Bishnoi, in an observation on judicial digitisation, expressed dismay that a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal was still issuing handwritten orders despite the e-Courts rollout. The Bench said the order sheets of a MACT at Hyderabad were handwritten and in parts illegible, although the award was passed in 2024, and asked the Telangana High Court to examine the cause and take corrective steps, with the order also sent to other High Courts. In the case, the Court allowed an insurer’s appeal, set aside the High Court’s refusal to examine the compensation award on merits on the basis of an execution undertaking, and remitted the appeal for fresh decision within six months.
A road accident on 13 February 2020 resulted in severe injuries to the claimant, who was 22 years old at the time. He moved the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal seeking ₹1 crore as compensation. His functional disability was assessed at 100%. The tribunal recorded that he was a second-year ITI student and assessed his monthly income at ₹25,000, accepting the submission that he assisted his father in farming, and awarded ₹2,72,03,416 with 6% interest.
The insurer challenged the award before the High Court. Meanwhile the claimant initiated execution proceedings and sought attachment through warrants under Order XXI Rules 43, 64 and 66 of the Code of Civil Procedure, during which the insurer’s local office furniture, fixtures and computers were attached. An undertaking was given by the insurer’s local manager to satisfy the award.
The insurer contended that the compensation computation was erroneous, including the income assessment and heads of award, and stated that the undertaking was furnished under coercive circumstances. The High Court dismissed the appeal on 19 November 2025 on the basis of the undertaking and later dismissed a review petition on 6 January 2026, referring to Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC.
The Court recorded concerns on judicial digitisation after examining the tribunal record: “Before parting with the order, we are constrained to notice that on a perusal of the records sent by the Tribunal, we found that the entire order sheets were handwritten.” “This is despite the fact that the Government of India has spent thousands of crores of rupees in computerization of the Courts throughout the country.” “The e-Courts project was started way back in the year 2007 and we are running into third phase thereof.”
It stated: “In that situation, we do not find any justification for the orders of the Tribunal to be handwritten, which otherwise are also not legible.” “Infact, we had to call for a typed copy thereof.” The Court also noted: “Even the name of the officers or their UID numbers have also not been mentioned where they had put their initials on the order sheets.” “In the absence thereof, either it is impossible to identify the officer or anyone may have to put in extra efforts to find out the same from the records as to who was posted in that Court at a particular time.”
On what was required to be examined, the Court recorded: “In case, the computers have been provided to the Tribunals, the High Court shall examine and find out as to why the orders were not being typed on computers.” “In case the computers have not been provided, the reasons therefor need to be examined and immediate appropriate action is required to be taken.” It added: “We cannot loose sight of the fact that the entire Court system is moving towards ‘paperless Courts’, which means from bottom to top.”
Turning to the handling of the insurer’s appeal, the Court stated: “From the facts of the case, it is evident that the appeal filed by the Insurance Company was dismissed by the High Court merely referring to an undertaking given by the local manager of the company that it will satisfy the award.” “That cannot be a reason for not touching the appeal on merits.” It recorded: “There was no undertaking given by the manager of the appellant-company that the appeal filed by it impugning the award of the Tribunal will not be pressed on merits.” “Otherwise he may or may not be person authorized to make a statement even for compliance of the award.”
On the execution process, the Court observed: “The manner in which the execution was pushed and the Tribunal attached the office furnitures, fixtures and computers for execution of the award, speaks of the hurry the Tribunal was in.” It noted: “A perusal of various orders passed by the Tribunal in execution of the award shows that the same was registered on 28.08.2025.” “Notice was directed to be issued to the Judgment Debtor 2-Insurance Company for 10.10.2025.” “On the next date of hearing, upon recording that none represented the Insurance Company, it was proceeded against ex-parte.”
Explaining why it proceeded without notice to the claimant while remitting the matter, the Court stated: “Considering the glaring error in the manner the appeal filed by the appellant had been dealt with without even touching the merits of the controversy, we have proceeded to decide the appeal without issuing notice to the claimant as we have not touched the merits of the controversy and are only proposing to remit the matter back to the High Court for consideration of the appeal on merits after hearing both the parties.” It added: “We have proceeded to pass this order for the reason that the process of issuing notice, effecting service and finally hearing the matter would further delay the disposal of the petition/ appeal by this Court, as a consequence there would be delay in disbursement of compensation to the claimant.”
The Supreme Court allowed appeals by the insurer against the Telangana High Court’s refusal to consider its challenge to a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal award of over ₹2.72 crore. The High Court had rejected the insurer’s appeal without examining the merits, citing only an undertaking recorded during execution proceedings.
The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s orders and sent the matter back for a fresh decision on merits. Pending that adjudication, it also directed the insurer to ensure release of ₹1 crore to the claimant.
The Court also ordered, “A copy of the order passed by this Court be sent to the Registrar General of the High Court for placing the same before Hon’ble the Chief Justice of the High Court. In addition, it may be sent to the Registrar Generals of other High Courts as well for placing the same before the Hon’ble the Chief Justices for taking appropriate corrective steps, if required.”
Case Title: National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Rathlavath Chandulal and Others
Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 146
Case Number: Civil Appeal Nos. 490-491 of 2026
Bench: Justice Rajesh Bindal and Justice Vijay Bishnoi
