Research › Search › Judgment

Andhra High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 605 (AP)

R. Sunki Reddy v. Khaja Jiyavoddin

2002-04-25

B.S.A.SWAMY, D.S.R.VERMA

body2002
B. S. A. SWAMY, J. ( 1 ) HEARD both the Counsel. This is a very harsh case. A young boy of 22 years of age died in a motor vehicle accident that took place in the year 1986 and the Counsel appearing for claimants who are the dependants of the deceased boy claimed only Rs. 75,000. 00as compensation under various heads and the Court awarded only Rs. 20,500. 00. Even under no fault liability the insurance company has to pay 15,000/ -. From this it is seen that the Tribunal estimated the value of human being aged about 22 years only at Rs. 20,500. 00which is inhuman. ( 2 ) THOUGH CMA 898/88 was filed against the order of the Tribunal to the misfortune of the claimants the learned Counsel appearing for them has forgotten to pay batta to the respondents and the CMA was dismissed by the Deputy Registrar for non-payment of batta. Thereafter the claimants filed an application in CMP No. 8303/99 four years after the dismissal of CMA for its restoration. The learned single Judge who heard the application dismissed the same on the ground of latches. Against this dismissal order, the present appeal is filed. ( 3 ) THOUGH legally we cannot find fault with the order of the learned single Judge, time and again the Apex Court has reiterated that any order passed by the Court should be in furtherance of cause of justice but not for denying justice. If we confirm this order of the Tribunal which is the result of non-application of mind, innocent dependants of the deceased boy who lost tried earning member of the family will be deprived of due compensation. Therefore, the order requires interference of this Court. ( 4 ) DURING the course of hearing it came to light that the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant filed applications straightaway for setting aside the order of dismissal for restoration of the CMA without filing an application for condonation of delay of four years, and that petition was dismissed. Though this Court is expressing its anguish over the foreign standards on the legal profession, neither there is any improvement in the conduct of the advocates nor the Bar Council is taking any remedial measures to see that the members of the legal fraternity acts with the required diligence to protect the interest of the litigant public. Though this Court is expressing its anguish over the foreign standards on the legal profession, neither there is any improvement in the conduct of the advocates nor the Bar Council is taking any remedial measures to see that the members of the legal fraternity acts with the required diligence to protect the interest of the litigant public. Hence, we are forced to give the above direction. The circumstances that weighed with us in setting aside the impugned order will equally applicable in exercising the inherent jurisdiction of this Court in condoning the delay in filing this application. However, for the period from the date of dismissal of CMA till this date, the appellants are not entitled to claim any interest on the compensation to be awarded by the learned single Judge. Further we give liberty to the appellants to proceed against the advocate if they so wish for realization of the interest. ( 5 ) THE facts of the case prove beyond doubt the professional negligence on the part of the Counsel. ( 6 ) FOR the foregoing reasons, the order of the learned single Judge is set aside. The order of the Deputy Registrar dismissing the CMA for non-payment of batta is set aside and the CMA is restored to file. Office to send notice to the respondents. The Counsel for the appellants is also permitted to take out personal notices to the respondents and file proof of service into the Court. ( 7 ) THE registry shall list the CMA for hearing before the single Judge immediately after vacation.