Uttarakhand High Court
AO/151/2012 on 24 September, 2021
Office Notes, reports,
orders or proceedings
SL.
Date or directions and COURT'S OR JUDGES'S ORDERS
No
Registrar's order with
Signatures
AO No.151 of 2012
Hon'ble Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.
Mr. Hari Mohan Bhatia, Advocate for the
appellant.
Mr. Naresh Pant, Advocate for respondent
nos.1 & 2/review applicant.
This Motor Accident Appeal, under Section
173 of the Motor Vehicle Act of 1988, was finally
considered by the Coordinate Bench of this Court
and by the judgment of 19.12.2019, the amount of
compensation as it was determined by the
impugned award dated 02.03.2012, as rendered in
Motor Accident Claim Case No.50 of 2005, was
enhanced.
It's after rendering of the judgment
respondent no.2, herein, had preferred the present
review application contending thereof, that the
judgment cannot be sustained for the reason being
that it was not based upon a rational principles, for
the determination of the aspect for enhancement
and particularly he has pleaded that the award ought
not to have been rendered by enhancing the amount,
because of the fact, that on the date of hearing, the
counsel for the applicant was not present. He has
further submitted, that the appellant failed to
ascertain, whether the name of the applicant's
counsel, as shown in the daily or weekly cause list
on the date of passing of the judgment was rightly
reflected or not. In fact, if the grounds are taken
into consideration, there is no challenge given to
any of the anomalies, which has been committed by
the Coordinate Bench, by rendering the judgment in
fact, it was only a procedural flaw, which has been
alleged to have been derived, for the purposes of
formulation of grounds for seeking the review.
The review, which was preferred on
04.02.2021, is supported with the delay
condonation application seeking a condonation of
382 days of delay as reported by the Registry of this
Court, which has chanced in preferring the review
application, since the same is not being seriously
opposed by the counsel for the claimant, the same
would stand condoned.
Heard the parties, on merits of the review
application.
In order to better elucidate and decide the
review application itself, this Court, will have to
slightly touched the merits of the matter and
particularly the defence, which was taken by
applicant to the review application; before the
Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, which led to the
formulation of issue nos.3 & 4, pertaining to the
validity of the insurance of the offending vehicle,
which was involved in the accident. The issues
were as under:-
^^3- D;k nq?kZVuk ds fnukad dks mDr thi chekd`r
ugha Fkh\
4- D;k mDr thi nq?kZVuk ds le; chek ikfylh o
ijfeV dh 'krks~Za ds foijhr pykbZ tk jgh Fkh\^^
If the written statement Paper No.27 Kha, as
was preferred by the review applicant, is taken into
consideration, in fact the plea, which was taken
therein was, that the offending vehicle was not
being driven with the valid license, permit and
documents, which otherwise a vehicle was required
to possess, when it is being plied on a public roads.
In turn if the findings on issue no.3 & 4 is taken
into consideration, the learned Motor Accident
Claim Tribunal has recorded the following
findings:-
^^dkxt la0 79x esa nq?kZVuk ds laca/k esa tkap djrs gq,
tkap fjiksVZ izLrqr dh x;h gS ftlesa ;wukbVsM ba';ksjsa'k
daiuh ls okgu dh vkj- lh-] ijfeV] fQVuSl dks
nq?kZVuk ds fnu oS/k gksuk crk;k x;k rFkk okgu pkyd
ds ikl Mh0,y0 la0 [email protected]}[email protected] gksuk crk;k
x;k gS] ftlls lkfcr gS fd nq?kZVuk ds fnu okgu thi
la0 ;w0ih0 06&0915 ;wukbVsM ba';ksj'sa k daiuh ls chfer
Fkh rFkk okgu pkyd }kjk leLr nLrkostksa ds lkFk
okgu dks pyk;k tk jgk FkkA vr% okn fcUnq la0 3 o 4
;kph ds i{k esa fuLrkfjr fd;k tkrk gSA^^
If the said contention is taken into
consideration in the light of the Paper No.78 Ga i.e.
report submitted, before the Motor Accident Claim
Tribunal, and the stand taken by the applicant to the
review application, before the Motor Accident
Claim Tribunal, in fact there was no apparent error
committed by the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal,
while deciding the claim petition in the light of
finding on issue nos.3 & 4 formulated on pleading
of review applicant but as against the judgment of
Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, the claimants have
only preferred the appeal from order for
enhancement of the amount. The review applicant
had not filed any independent appeal against the
award.
Rather the review applicant, has submitted to
the award and had not preferred the appeal from
order. It's not even, that on the date when the
appeal from order itself was heard finally on its
merits, none had appeared to defend the appeal,
where the enhancement was sought by the
claimants and after having gone through the
judgment, which has been sought to be reviewed,
and particularly on the pretext of the grounds taken
in review application that will not fall to be within
the ambit of Order 47 Rule 1, to be read with
Section 114 of C.P.C. because there is no apparent
error in the judgment on the face of it, which could
be said to have been committed by the Court while
parting with the judgment enhancing the amount of
compensation by the judgment of 19.12.2019.
Hence, the review application lacks merits
and the same is, accordingly dismissed.
(Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.)
24.09.2021
Arti
