Research › Browse › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

1998 DIGILAW 1262 (RAJ)

Ramesh Kumar Soni v. State of Rajasthan

1998-11-27

B.J.SHETHNA

body1998
Honble SHETHNA, J–The petitioner Ramesh Kumar Soni, owner of three wheelers vehicle having registration no. RRN 8517 has challenged in this writ petition the interim award (Annex.2) dated 19.9.1997 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bikaner awarding Rs. 50,000/- in favour of the claimants on the principle of ``no fault liability on the death of deceased Deep Chand Ojha. (2). At page 5 of this writ petition, it has been averred that :- ``The petitioner filed the Civil Revision before this High Court against the said order of the Tribunal. The same was recorded as S.B. Civil Revision No. 2881 of 1997, (defect). Ramesh Kumar Soni Vs. Geeta Devi & Others, on 5.11.1997. The office pointed out the defect that without depositing Rs. 25,000/- this Revision Petition can not be entertained. The matter was listed in the Court on 25.4.1998. The judgment of the full bench of this court was cited before the learned Single Judge referred in 1998 1 WLC at page 1, R.S.R.T.C. Vs. Gopal Singh and others. The full bench judgment says that the writ petition u/Sec. 226 lies in such matter and consequently the learned single Judge committee asked the petitioner to withdraw the Civil Revision and to file the Writ Petition, hence the petitioner is filing this writ petition on the following among the other grounds against the order of the Tribunal, dated 19.9.1997. (3). In view of the above averments made in this writ petition the original file of S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 2881/97 (def.) was called for. There is an application dated 25.4.1998 made in the aforesaid revision petition which is re-produced as under:- ``In the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, at Jodhpur. S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 2881/97 (defect) Ramesh Kumar vs. Smt. Geetadevi and Others. Application u/S. 151 C.P.C. to order to treat this revision petition as a writ petition. May it please Your lordships, The counsel for the petitioner respectfully begs to submit as under :- 1) That as per the full bench decision of this Honble Court referred in 98 W.L.C. (1), this revision petition is not maintainable and a writ is maintainable. 2) That the petitioner respectfully begs to submit that the revision petition may kindly be ordered to be treated as a writ petition and the same may be decided on merits. 2) That the petitioner respectfully begs to submit that the revision petition may kindly be ordered to be treated as a writ petition and the same may be decided on merits. It is therefore, respectfully prayed that the application may be allowed and the revision may be ordered to be treated as writ petition. Counsel for the petitioner. Dt. 25.4.98. Honble Justice Bhagwati Prasad passed the following order, which is reproduced as under:- ``25.4.98 Honble Mr. Bhagwati Prasad, J. Mr. A.K. Singh, for the petitioner. Learned counsel has filed an application praying that the present revision petition be treated as writ petition. However, he is permitted to withdraw the revision petition with liberty to file writ petition. The revision petition is dismissed as withdrawn. (5). During the course of arguments, learned counsel Shri Singh for the petitioner submitted that due to bonafide mistake he has referred to a full bench judgment of this Court reported in R.S.R.T.C. Vs. Gopal Singh and others (1). Similar mistake was committed by him in the application dated 25.4.1998 submitted in S.B.Civil Revision Petition No. 2881/97 (def.). It may be stated that when he commenced the arguments in this writ petition before me he has cited the judgment of full bench reported in R.S.R.T.C. vs. Gopal Singh and others (supra), but when he realised his mistake, be submitted that there is yet another full bench judgment of this Court in case of United India Insurance Co. vs. Brij Mohan Das (2), which says that revision against the orders of Tribunal or Commission does not lie to the High Court, but revision, on application, can be treated as petition under Article 226 or 227 of the Constitution of India. On the basis of full bench judgment of this Court in Brij Mohan Dass case (Supra), it was submitted by Mr. Singh that learned Single Judge should have treated the revision petition filed by him as a writ petition. It is too late in a day to make such submission when his revision petition was disposed of as withdrawn with liberty to file fresh petition. Singh that learned Single Judge should have treated the revision petition filed by him as a writ petition. It is too late in a day to make such submission when his revision petition was disposed of as withdrawn with liberty to file fresh petition. It is true that full bench judgment of this Court in Brij Mohan Dass case (supra) has observed that such revision petition can be treated as petition under Article 226/227 of the Corstitution of India, but it has never said that it should be treated as a petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution. It is always the discretion of the learned Judge taking up the matter whether to treat such revision petition as a petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution or not. However, I make it clear that it was only an academic discussion. Once, the learned Judge has granted permission to the petitioner to file writ petition then this Court is bound to consider it in accordance with law, learned counsel Shri Singh was heard on merits at great length. (6). On merits, it was submitted that the learned Tribunal committed a grave error in awarding Rs. 50,000/- against the petitioner, who is owner of the three wheelers vehicle having registration no. RRN 8517 and not the owner of three wheeler vehicle no. RNN 1587, which does not belong to him and the number of said vehicle is mentioned at the earliest point of time in the FIR lodged by one Om Prakash Purohit. He, therefore, submitted that though the scope of writ petition filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution is limited and narrow, but this is a case where an error apparent on the face of record is committed by the Tribunal, therefore, interim order passed by the Tribunal should be set aside by this Court in exercise of its extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India. At first look, this submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner looks very attractive, but on going through the interim award passed by the learned Tribunal and the reasons assigned for the same by the learned Tribunal, this argument made by learned counsel for the petitioner found to be wholly mis- conceived. At first look, this submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner looks very attractive, but on going through the interim award passed by the learned Tribunal and the reasons assigned for the same by the learned Tribunal, this argument made by learned counsel for the petitioner found to be wholly mis- conceived. It appears that Shri Om Prakash Purohit, who has lodged the first information report before the police seems to have committed bonafide mistake in giving the registration number of the vehicle which was alleged to have been in- volved in the incident and instead of giving the vehicle no. as RRN 8517 he has mentioned as RNN 1587. It is pertinent to note that said Shri Om Prakash Purohit has mentioned the name of driver as Suresh Kumar, who infact was driving the vehicle no. RRN 8517 belonging to the petitioner. (7). Learned counsel Shri Singh tried to submit that in the instant case, police tried to falsely involved the petitioner and after a period of almost four months of the incident falsely involved the vehicle no. RRN 8517 which is belonging to the petitioner. It is true that the correct number of vehicle was disclosed after about four months during the investigation, but for that no fault can be found with police because on the basis of wrong number i.e. RNN 1587 mentioned in the FIR the poli- ce was investigating the case through R.T.O. But, thorough investigation made by the police, which is found to be very rare now a days, show that no three wheelers vehicle was registered as RNN 1587. From the investigation made through R.T.O. Jodhpur it was found that vehicle no. RNN 1587 is a four wheeler vehicle i.e. Bus and there is one two wheeler vehicle i.e. Hero Honda Motor Cycle no. RNN 1587. Thus, after detailed investigation the police found that there is no three wheeler vehicle registered as RNN 1587. Under the circumstances, police first gave notice to the present petitioner and enquired from him that who was driving his three wheeler vehicle no. RRN 8517. In reply to said notice, the petitioner has clearly stated that on the date of incident i.e. 17.8.1994 Suresh Kumar was driving the vehi- cle. Under the circumstances, police first gave notice to the present petitioner and enquired from him that who was driving his three wheeler vehicle no. RRN 8517. In reply to said notice, the petitioner has clearly stated that on the date of incident i.e. 17.8.1994 Suresh Kumar was driving the vehi- cle. However, an attempt is made by the learned counsel for the petitioner before me to say that police forcibly took the signatures of the petitioner on blank papers and falsely involved the petitioner. Such an argument cannot be accepted for the simple reason that there was no reason for the police to falsely involved the petitioner. After considering all the circumstances, when the Tribunal has come to the conclusion that three wheeler vehicle no. RRN 8517 belonging to the present petitioner was driven by his driver Suresh Kumar at the time of incident then this court will certainly not interfere with such finding of fact arrived at after due appreciation of evidence in a petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution. Though this petition is labelled as a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, but strictly speaking this is a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and the scope of which is very narrow and limited. As held by the Honble Supreme Court in a case reported in AIR 1984 S.C. page 38 that the High Court cannot interfere with the error committed on law by the Court below or the Tribunal in exercise of powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. (8). In this case, there is no error much less error on law or jurisdictional error committed by the Tribunal which calls for interference by this Court in its extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. (9). In view of the above discussion, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed with special cost of Rs. 5000/- as the petitioner has filed this absolutely false and frivolous petition and tried to take dis-advantage of bonafide mistake committed by the complainant-first informant by mentioning wrong number of the vehicle in his FIR. The petitioner shall deposit the amount of Rs. 5000/- within one month before the Registrar General of this Court, which shall be utilised by the office for legal aid purpose.