Allahabad High Court
Vipin vs Srawan Kumar And 4 Others on 19 August, 2025
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:141088-DB
Court No. - 39
Case :- CIVIL MISC REVIEW APPLICATION No. - 195 of 2025
Applicant :- Vipin
Opposite Party :- Srawan Kumar And 4 Others
Counsel for Applicant :- Rahul Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Anil Kumar Chaurasia
Hon'ble Arindam Sinha,J.
Hon'ble Avnish Saxena,J.
(Per Arindam Sinha, J.)
1. The review application has been specially assigned to the Bench presided over by one of us (Arindam Sinha, J.). Mr. Rahul Singh, learned advocate appears on behalf of review applicant. He submits, his client being aggrieved by judgment dated 11th March, 2015 of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (M.A.C.T.) had sought to prefer the appeal, presented on reported delay of 274 days. A Division Bench of this Court (the learned Judges no longer available) by judgment dated 13th December, 2016 dismissed his client's application for condonation of delay in presenting the appeal. Hence, the application for review on good grounds. On query he submits, the review was presented on reported delay of 3022 days. Application has been made for condonation.
2. Mr. Singh submits, his client was a passenger in an auto-rickshaw/tempo. At about 3 p.m. in afternoon on 2nd October, 2012 a vehicle, rashly driven, hit the auto-rickshaw from behind. His client was then a minor. He was thrown out of the auto-rickshaw and suffered serious injuries. His father filed compensation claim of Rs. 7,61,000/- in the M.A.C.T. By judgment dated 11th March, 2015, the claim was allowed to extent of Rs. 28,000/- only. He submits further, his client suffered 40% disability due to the accident. Delay should not be held against him for enforcing his statutory right of appeal against said judgment. He relies on judgment of the Supreme Court in Collector, Land Acquisition vs. Katiji reported in 1987 (2) SCC 107.
3. Mr. Ajit Kumar Shukla, learned advocate appears on behalf of respondent nos. 1 to 4. On query he submits, respondent no. 4 was driving the vehicle. He was driver engaged by respondent no. 1. The vehicle belongs to said respondent. He adds, all documents in respect of the vehicle were in order at the time of accident. Said order dated 11th March, 2015 of the M.A.C.T. was made upon hearing the parties before it. There was direction upon the insurance company, to pay Rs. 28,000/-. The review application is grossly delayed. It does not disclose a ground of review. It be dismissed.
4. On query regarding notice Mr. Shukla submits, as he had appeared before the earlier Division Bench, who made said order dated December, 2016, sought for review, he got information and, therefore, has appeared. Learned advocate, who had appeared for the insurance company has since been elevated. As such, it is a case for directing administrative notice to the insurance company but we do not intend to so direct because in our view the review is not maintainable. We give our reasons as below.
5. Going straightaway to said judgment dated 13th December, 2016 of the earlier Division Bench rejecting applicant's application for condonation of delay in presenting the appeal, we see that said Division Bench was not satisfied with explanation given for it. Applicant had said that the decree was made available only on 19th February, 2016. Said Bench found the judgment/order to bear date 11th March, 2015 and the decree was drawn up on 18th March, 2015. Review applicant had applied for certified copy of the decree only on 8th February, 2016. On very next day, i.e., 9th February, 2016, the certified copy was delivered to him.Those were the facts found. In the circumstances said Bench held, review applicant was not entitled to exclusion of that time or to cite such fact as good cause for being prevented to file the appeal in time.
6. Said Division Bench also relied upon Collector, Land Acquisition (supra). The Supreme Court, in the judgment had said that the Judiciary is respected not on account of its power to legalise injustice on technical grounds but because it is capable of removing injustice and is expected to do so. Mr. Singh hands up translation of said order dated 11th March, 2015 of the M.A.C.T. We looked at said order to find prima facie appreciation of injustice caused to review applicant.
7. In said order dated 11th March, 2015 of the M.A.C.T. stood framed, inter alia, an issue being issue no. 1, reproduced hereunder.
"Issue no. 1 This issue has been framed to the effect that whether on 02.10.2012 at 3 p.m. at Basi Japati Mafi Police Station Kaptanganj District Azamgarh, the driver of Bolero Jeep U.P. 50 U 1682 while dirving it rashly and negligently his an auto, due to which the petitioner Vipin riding on it suffered serious injuries?"
The Tribunal concluded from all the documentary and oral evidence that on 2nd October 2012 at 3 p.m. in the place Basi Japati Mafi, Police Station Kaptanganj, District Azamgarh, the driver of Bolero Jeep no. U.P. 50 U 1682 while driving fast and carelessly, hit the auto, due to which petitioner (Vipin) riding on it suffered serious injuries. We reproduce below a paragraph from the judgment following above findings.
"The petitioner is entitled to receive the cash expenses incurred on medical treatment. The petitioner has presented prescriptions and receipts related to medical treatment, paper no. 20G1/1, 20G1/3 and X-rays and scans which inlclude those of Medicine, which are No. 20G1/1, 20G1/2, 20G1/3, 20G1/4, 20G1/5, 20G1/8, 20G1/8, 20G1/10. The receipts show the date and doctor's prescription. He is entitled to receive them. Other receipts have also been presented, the first receipt of which is dated 20G1/6, 20G1/7, 20G1/8. In the second receipt date is not mentioned on the receipts of the doctor. The petitioner has suffered serious injury. Due to which the petitioner is also entitled to get Rs. 5,000/- for serious injury and mental agony. Thus the petitioner is entitled to Rs. 28,000/- (Rupees Twenty Eight Thousand only), the responsibility of payment of which lies with the opponent United India Insurance Company Limited."
8. The M.A.C.T. had relied on medical documents to calculate the amount of compensation. It also directed further payment of Rs. 5,000/- as compensation. We do not have prima facie appreciation of injustice. Furthermore, no subsequent discovery of some new material in spite of due diligence nor error apparent stands disclosed. This is followed by firstly, delay in presenting the appeal and thereafter 3022 days reported delay in presenting the application for review. In such situation, it will be dangerous to condone the successive delays as then there will be no finality to litigation, this one as well as others, citing the condonation as a precedent.
9. We are constrained to and dismiss the review application.
Order Date :- 19.8.2025
Shiraz
(Arindam Sinha, J.)
(Avnish Saxena, J.)
