High Court
Case Details
CRP 52/2004 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE A.K. GOSWAMI Heard Mr. S.K. Goswami, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. B.K. Jain, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1/claimant. By this application under Section 115 of the CPC read with Article 227 o f the Constitution of India, judgement and award dated 30-05-2003 passed by the learned Member, Motor Accident Tribunal, Kamrup, MACT No. 278 of 1997 has been p ut under challenge whereby the claimant was awarded a sum of Rs. 5,01,063/- incl usive of no fault award with interest @ 9 % from the date of filing the petition i.e. 19-07-1996 till payment with direction to deposit the awarded amount withi n 30 days. By an order dated 30-01-2009, the revision petition was admitted for hea ring and an interim order was passed staying the operation of impugned judgement and award dated 30-05-2003.
Legal Reasoning
Subsequently, on 30-09-2010, this Court, noting that the respondent in this case apparently was completely paralyzed directed that before the revision petition is taken up for consideration, the petitioner should first deposit wit h the Registrar General of this Court the entire awarded amount on or before 30 -11-2010, i.e. the entire compensation along with interest as directed by the l earned Tribunal till 30-11-2010. It has been pointed out by Mr. Goswami that the amount of Rs. 9,28,799/-, representing the said amount as on 30-11-2010 had bee n deposited before the Registrar General of this Court on 25-11-2010.
Legal Reasoning
Mr. Goswami submits that the Tribunal, after hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on consideration of materials on record, had passed a judge ment and award dated 05-12-2000 on the claim petition of the claimant, which was registered as MACT Case No. 278 of 1997 before the learned Member, MACT, Kamrup , Guwahati, for sustaining injuries in a vehicular accident that had taken pla ce on 11-09-1996 at about 4:30 P.M, while he was travelling as a passenger in a Mini Bus bearing registration No. AS-01-E-6891. The claim petition was dismisse d on the ground that as the operation was performed on 15-07-1996, there was no proximate nexus to attribute the injuries and also for the expenditure incurred to the alleged accident. He submits that the impugned award was subsequently pa ssed by the learned Tribunal by way of review of the earlier judgement and awar d dated 05-12-2000. It is submitted that the learned Tribunal has no jurisdict ion to review its own judgement except for clerical mistakes or errors and, the refore, the impugned judgement and award of the learned Tribunal is liable to be interfered with. Mr. B.K. Jain, learned counsel for the respondent No.1/claimant, on the other hand, submits that the present revision petition itself is not maintainabl e and Insurance Company ought to have availed the remedy by way of an appeal as it has challenged the final award passed. It is also submitted by him that the application for review filed by the claimant was contested on merits before the learned Tribunal and the learned Tribunal had passed order dated 01-11-2002, a llowing the prayer for review of the judgement and award dated 05-12-2000. The p etitioner did not assail, at any point of time, the said order dated 01-11-2002 and even in this petition, the said judgement and award dated 01-11-2002 has not been put to challenge. On merits, the learned counsel submits that claim of the claimant came to be rejected by the order dated 05-12-2000 only on the ground o f date of operation being taken as 15-07-1996 on the basis of the testimony of P W 1. He submits that if actually the operation was performed on 15-07-1996, the claimant could not have claimed the compensation on account of injuries sustaine d but that is not the reality of the situation inasmuch as, documents on record and more particularly, the Discharge Certificate of the Institute of Neurologic al Sciences (INS) (Exhibit-5) itself demonstrates that the claimant was brought to the INS on the date of accident and he was operated upon on 15-09-1996. It is also submitted by him that the claimant had also exhibited number of relevant d ocuments as Exhibit Nos. 6 to 136 and had examined 6 witnesses including fellow passengers in the bus. He submits that in the aforesaid circumstances, no case is made out for interference with the judgement and award dated 30-05-2003. I have heard and considered the submission of the learned c ounsel for the parties. I have also perused the materials available on record. It is to be noted that PW 1 and PW 6 are Doctors who treated the claiman t and subsequently, they had again been examined as Court witness after the appl ication for review was allowed on 01- 11-2002. PW1 had earlier submitted that the claimant had an operation on 15-0 7-1996 at INS for L-3-4 Spinal Cord and on examination as Court witness, su bmitted that the date was inadvertently mentioned as 15-07-1996 and on verifi cation of the records, it is clear that the operation was performed on 15-0 9-1996. The Discharge Certificate, which was issued by INS, exhibited as Exhibit 5 before review was allowed, shows that the claimant was admitted on 11-09-200 6 and discharged on 23-09-1996. The case history as recorded therein shows that the claimant presented on 11-09-1996 with history of injury while travelling in a 407 Bus and that he was lifted from his seat and he hit his head against th e roof of the bus, landing on the seat bar on his neck. It is also recorded tha t the patient was not able to move his body from hip downwards. The final diagn osis was recorded in Exhibit 5 as Traumatic Paraplegia following PIVD C3-C4 ( Pr olapsed Inter-Vertical disc). Exhibit 6 (exhibited before the review was allowed ) is a discharge summary which records that surgery was done on 15-09-1996. In the claim petition, the claimant had indicated that after the accident, the c laimant was brought to the Government Ayurvedic Hospital in the vehicle involved in the accident, where after, he was referred to INS. He had also deposed accor dingly in his evidence as PW 4/claimant. There was no cross-examination of the c laimant. The driver and the owner also did not controvert the statements in the claim petition by filing written statement. A perusal of the order dated 01-11-2002 shows that the prayer for review was con tested by the petitioner Insurance Company by filing written objection. The peti tioner did not assail the said order dated 01-11-2002 and continued to participa te in the proceeding before the learned Tribunal. Even before this Court, the s aid order dated 01-11-2002 has not been assailed though Mr. Goswami submits that this Court is not powerless to examine the validity of the order dated 01-11-20 02, though not challenged, in an application under Article 227 of the Constitut ion of India. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I am not persuaded by the argument o f Mr. Goswami to go into the question as to whether the learned Tribunal was rig ht in passing the order dated 01-11-2002, acceding the prayer of the claimant f or review. No other ground has been canvassed. In view of the discussion aforesaid, without going into the question as to whether this revision petition is maintainable, f inding no merit in this application, the same is dismissed. The amount deposited before the Registrar General of this Court may be d isbursed to the claimant on being duly identified.