HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE M.LAXMAN
CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.735 of 2007
JUDGMENT:
1. This Court on 25.01.2023 dismissed the present civil miscellaneous appeal, as if the same was filed against order dated 23.05.2006 in W.C.No.7 of 2005 on the file of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation and Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Rangareddy District-II, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Commissioner'). In fact, the learned counsel for the appellant also advanced the arguments in the appeal, as if the appeal was directed against the above said award. Subsequently, this Court noticed that the present appeal is directed against order dated 02.03.2007 in I.A.No.2 of 2006 in W.C.No.7 of 2005 on the file of the Commissioner. Therefore, the judgment dated 25.01.2023 has been recalled suo motu by this Court by order dated 15.02.2023.
2. Heard, the learned counsel for the appellant.
3. The present civil miscellaneous appeal has been directed against the order dated 02.03.2007 in I.A.No.2 of 2006 in W.C.No.7 of 2005 on the file of the Commissioner. The said application was filed to review the order dated 23.05.2006 on the ground that the said order was obtained by playing fraud. The Commissioner dismissed the said application holding that no fraud has been 2 ML,J CMA_735_2007 established and the order cannot be recalled. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is filed by the insurance company.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the impugned order is passed by the Commissioner without considering the fraud established by the appellant. According to him, the order dated 23.05.2006 was passed treating injured- respondent No.1 as 2nd driver, in fact he was gratuitous passenger traveling in the vehicle.
5. As seen from the evidence on record, there is a specific pleading by respondent No.1, who filed the claim before the Commissioner, that he was 2nd driver and not gratuitous passenger. The appellant herein also filed counter before the Commissioner contending that the injured-respondent No.1 is gratuitous passenger and not 2nd driver. The Commissioner has given findings basing on the evidence on record holding that respondent No.1 was 2nd driver and not gratuitous passenger. Having disputed such findings no appeal is preferred, instead the present application for review has been filed.
6. No doubt, there is no provision under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 to review the order passed by the 3 ML,J CMA_735_2007 Commissioner, however, every Court or Tribunal has inherent jurisdiction to recall its own order, if the same is obtained by playing fraud. In the present case, the appellant filed review application as well as the present appeal stating that the order dated 23.05.2006 has been obtained by playing fraud, but no details of fraud are given. When there are specific contentions from both the parties with regard to injured-respondent No.1 being 2nd driver and when details of fraud are not established the order dated 23.05.2006 passed by the Commissioner granting compensation to respondent No.1 cannot be recalled. In the said circumstances, the Commissioner has rightly dismissed the review application. This Court feels that there is no substantial question of law in this appeal, the same is devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed.
7. In the result, the civil miscellaneous appeal is dismissed confirming the order dated 02.03.2007 in I.A.No.2 of 2006 in W.C.No.7 of 2005 on the file of Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation and Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Rangareddy District-II. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.
______________ M.LAXMAN, J Date: 22.02.2023 GVR