Delhi High Court
Kamlesh Kumar vs Ravi Kumar on 21 May, 2019
$~25
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 21.05.2019
+ FAO 457/2016
KAMLESH KUMAR ..... Appellant
Through:
versus
RAVI KUMAR ..... Respondent
Through: Ms. Savita Singh, Advocate for
Revisionist alongwith Revisionist.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI
NAJMI WAZIRI, J. (ORAL)
Review Pet. 431/2018 & CM APPL. 50818-21/2018
The applicant's SLP against this Court's order dated 29.01.2018, was
dismissed on 12.10.2018 by the Supreme Court observing as under:-
"The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
vehicle involved in the accident was not a scooter, but an
ambulance itself.
If that be so, it is for the petitioner to approach the High
Court by way of a review petition.
Subject to the above, the Special Leave Petition is
dismissed.
Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, is/are
disposed of."
In view of the above, the applicant seeks review of the order dated
29.01.2018, on the ground that the vehicle mentioned therein bore
FAO-457/2016 Page | 1
registration number UP-14-T-1593. This number is of a motor cycle, but it
has all along been the petitioner's case that he was driving a four wheeler
ambulance. He has now annexed a print out from the Transport Department,
Government of Uttar Pradesh certifying that the registration number UP-14-
DT-1593 is of an ambulance and its owner's name is M/s Narayan Hospital.
It is contended that the petitioner is an illiterate person, he did not
understand the finer details of the vehicle number when it was first given by
him to the police. She refers to this Court's order dated 22.01.2018, when
for the first time the issue of the vehicle number was raised. On that date for
the respondent had first submitted that the aforementioned registration
number was of a two-wheeler Bajaj motor cycle model Bajaj Boxer (Petrol).
It was registered at Ghaziabad in the name of one Mohd. Shahnawaj. She
submits that this aspect should have been diligently followed up by the
petitioner the petitioner's lawyer, but the latter failed to discharge his
professional diligently. It is contended that the fact that only the letter 'D'
was missing from the aforesaid registration number, the registration of the
ambulance and identity of the aforesaid vehicle is proven; therefore, the
aforesaid order be reviewed and the case be remanded back for re-
adjudication, on the basis of such facts as may be lead by the petitioner.
The Court is not persuaded by the aforesaid argument because the
case, on facts and in law does not warrant a review. For a moment even if
the registration number of the van is accepted to be UP-14-DT-1593, and
that it was an ambulance, it would still make no difference to, the inexorable
conclusion that there was no evidence of employment of the appellant by the
owner of the ambulance. The Court had already answered in the negative
apropos the question of law i.e. whether in the absence of any material
FAO-457/2016 Page | 2
evidence, the claimant can be considered to be an employee of the
appellant?
This Court had concluded inter alia as under:-
"10. In view of the preceding discussion, the question of
law raised is answered in the negative. It is odd that the claim
was allowed even in the absence of a bare minimum evidence
regarding: i) proof of employment; ii) proof of the accident,
any record, any FIR; iii) MLC of the other injured persons; iv)
their treatment records; v) their claims, if any; vi) claimants
lack of knowledge about other vehicles engaged in the
business by the "employer"; vii) the names of other drivers and
co-workers; viii) the nature and structure of business; ix) the
area of operations, etc. The decision clearly lacks basis on
facts.
11. In the circumstances, the impugned order cannot be
sustained. It is set aside. The appeal is allowed. The amount
deposited by the appellant be released to him alongwith the
interest accrued thereon."
The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that perhaps the
relevant evidence was not brought on record because of deficient legal
assistance to the petitioner, who is ignorant of the complex world of laws
and procedure; that this is a hard case and the petitioner will suffer an
irreparable injury, if he is not granted one more opportunity in the interest of
justice. The Court is unable to accept the said plea because it fraught with
many pitfalls and could lend to an anomaly in the course of administration
of justice. It is not the petitioner's case that he was not granted due
opportunity to lead evidence and to plead his case. This petition is not based
on denial of natural justice or that in the judgment, there is any mistake or
error which is apparent on the face of the record or for any other sufficient
reason needs review or correction. Instead the review is sought primarily on
FAO-457/2016 Page | 3
the grounds of sympathy. But the law of review is not founded on sympathy.
It is based on sound statutory mandate and long settled judicial dicta. None
of the grounds for review of the judgment are made out. Indeed, a Division
Bench of this Court has held that:
"Sympathy is an abysmal pit in adjudication
proceedings, and cannot become the basis for decision
making. For the decision making to be perceived as fair, the
process leading to the decision must appear to be transparent.
Decisions must be based on cogent reasons and the power to
do so must be exercised judiciously." 1
What is the degree of sympathy that would warrant review of a
decision can never be fixed therefore a nebulous criterion, depending on the
nature and degree of feelings that a case may arouse in the adjudicating
authority, cannot be the basis for grant of review. While the courts would
have a companionate disposition in the dispensation of justice, restraint and
caution would need to be exercised to ensure that compassion does not lapse
into sympathy.
In view of the above, the Review Petition is dismissed.
NAJMI WAZIRI, J
MAY 21, 2019
RW
Forech India Ltd. Vs. The Designated Authority & Ors., W.P.(C) 4810/2014 decided on 31.05.2018.
FAO-457/2016 Page | 4
