Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 471 (HP)

National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nisha Verma

2016-04-13

TARLOK SINGH CHAUHAN

body2016
JUDGMENT : Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J. The award impugned reveals judicial obstinacy, indiscipline and rank insubordination on the part of Sh. Shamsher Singh, the then Presiding Officer, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Shimla. 2. The undisputed facts are that at an earlier occasion, this court while deciding FAO No. 480 of 2005, preferred by respondent No.1 and another appeal bearing FAO No. 305/06, preferred at the behest of the appellant herein had come to the conclusion that the learned Tribunal in its award dated 13.9.2005 had in a slipshod manner decided the question of validity of driving licence and, therefore, the case was remanded to the learned Tribunal below with a direction to re-admit the petition on its record and dispose of the same only on the point as to whether driver of the vehicle Purshotam Singh s/o Hari Singh possessed a valid driving licence at the time when the accident occurred, vide orders passed to this effect on 11.7.2011. It was specifically made clear that the other points which were settled by the learned Tribunal in its award were not to be disturbed nor evidence would be allowed to be adduced on these points. 3. It is apt to reproduce the relevant portion of the order dated 11.7.2011 which reads thus: “In these circumstances, this case is remanded to the learned District Judge, Shimla who shall re-admit the petition on its record and dispose of the same only on the point as to whether driver of the vehicle Purshotam Singh son of Hari Singh possessed a valid driving licence at the time when the accident occurred.” Parties will be given an opportunity to lead evidence only on this point and nothing else. The other points which were settled by the learned Tribunal shall not be disturbed nor any evidence shall be allowed to be adduced on them. Both these appeals are remanded. A direction is also issued that the learned Tribunal shall endeavour to dispose of these cases at the earliest not later than 31st December, 2011.” 4. The learned, yet erring Presiding Officer Sh. Both these appeals are remanded. A direction is also issued that the learned Tribunal shall endeavour to dispose of these cases at the earliest not later than 31st December, 2011.” 4. The learned, yet erring Presiding Officer Sh. Shamsher Singh, very glibly ignored the above directions of this court and ventured to pass a fresh award not only deciding the issue regarding validity of the driving licence of Purshotam Singh, but also proceeded to consider de novo the other issues including the issue of quantum of compensation payable to the claimant and enhanced the same from Rs.3.00 lakh to Rs.5,65,000/- and he further even enhanced the rate-of-interest from 7.5 % per annum to 8% per annum. 5. The aforesaid act on the part of Sh. Shamer Singh, tantamounts to gross judicial impropriety, gross indiscipline, demeaning the majesty of justice and an act unbecoming of a Judicial Officer and would have in normal course called for severe disciplinary action. But this cannot now be resorted to in view of the concerned Judicial Officer having already retired. 6. Even as a general preposition, there can be no gainsaying that disobedience or disregard of the law laid down by the High Court by the subordinate courts is not only against the very concept of rule of law but also verges on the contempt of court as subordinate courts are, by way of constitutional provision, bound by the decision of the local High Court as is every court of the country including the High Courts, bound by the decisions of the Supreme Court by virtue of provisions of Article 141 of the Constitution. If the subordinate courts start ignoring the law laid down by their High Courts and start acting contrary thereto, then not only the legal anarchy will set in but the democratic structure of the country, rule of law and contempt of liberty of citizens will be the first casualty. (Court on its own motion Vs. Central Bureau of Investigating 2004(72) DRJ 629 ). 7. But here is a case where this court did not lay down any law, rather this court had remanded the case with ‘specific directions’. As observed earlier, the Presiding Officer very glibly and deliberately ignored these directions which is apparent and otherwise evident from the fact that he has not even chosen to make a mention or even refer to the order of remand. 8. As observed earlier, the Presiding Officer very glibly and deliberately ignored these directions which is apparent and otherwise evident from the fact that he has not even chosen to make a mention or even refer to the order of remand. 8. The act of misdemeanor on the part of learned MACT is apparent and is writ large on the face of award. Such judicial adventurism cannot be permitted and deserves to be deprecated in strongest terms. After all subordinate court is bound by the directions issued by the superior court as system of administration of justice aims at certainty in the law and that can be achieved only if Judges do not ignore the decisions by the courts of superior authority. This is the proper and traditional way to deal with the matters and it is founded and healthy principles of judicial decorum and propriety. 9. The manner in which the learned Presiding Officer has conducted himself in these proceedings clearly amounts to judicial impropriety, rank insubordination and reflects a complete lack of judicial decorum. 10. Adverting to the merits of the case, it would be noticed that the learned Tribunal below, after remand of the case, has held that the respondent No.2 had been in possession of a valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident. In such circumstances, therefore, the appellant/insurance company is required to abide by the original award passed by the learned Tribunal, meaning thereby that the appellant would not be liable to pay any amount of compensation over and above the award passed earlier by the Tribunal on 13.9.2005 that includes the principal amount as also the interest. 11. In view of the aforesaid discussion, appeal is allowed and the appellant/insurance company is liable to pay the amount of compensation strictly in accordance with the award passed by MACT, Shimla on 13.9.2005. With these observations, appeal is disposed of in the aforesaid terms, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.