M/S New India Assurance Co. Ltd., ... vs Sri M. Mohan Reddy And Another
2023 Latest Caselaw 898 Tel

             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

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

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