Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 380 (GAU)

New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Minoti Mullick

2020-03-12

NANI TAGIA

body2020
JUDGMENT Nani Tagia, J. - Heard Mr. K. K. Bhatta, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. M. Talukdar, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and Mr. A. M. Bharbhuiya, learned counsel for the respondent No. 4. 2. The petitioner seeks review of the order dated 25.04.2014, passed by this Court in MAC Appeal No. 77/2009, whereby, the appeal filed by the Review petitioner was dismissed. 3. The facts leading to filing of the present Review petition, may briefly be stated as follows. wxyz (i). The Review petitioner had filed MAC Appeal No. 77/2009 challenging the judgment and award passed by the Additional District Judge, FTC, Cachar at Silchar in MAC Case No. 1192/2004 by which judgment and award the learned Tribunal had awarded a sum of Rs. 5 lakhs as compensation to be paid to the respondent Nos. 1, 2 & 3, herein/claimants. The MAC appeal filed by the petitioner/appellant was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 25.04.2014 wherein, following orders were passed, which is quoted hereinbelow: zyxw wxyz "One Debendro Mullick had died in a vehicular accident. His wife had filed a petition before the tribunal seeking compensation. zyxw wxyz Tribunal awarded Rs. 5 lakh-odd compensation and directed the insurer to pay the same. Insurer is now in appeal challenging the award on the premise that it has no liability to pay compensation as the car in which the deceased was travelling in is a private car and the policy issued is an Act policy, did not cover the risk of inmate; therefore the insurer does not incur any liability to pay compensation. zyxw wxyz Deceased was working as manager in a tea garden with salary Rs. 4, 399/- per month, rounded to 4,400/-. He left behind his wife and three minor children. So, one-fourths of Rs. 4,400/- is to be deducted towards personal expenses. Therefore, Rs. 3,300/- would enure to the benefit of dependency. The total loss of dependency would be 3300x12x4=Rs. 1,58,400/-. The wife is entitled to Rs. 25,000/- towards loss of consortium, 25,000/- loss of expectancy and 10.000/- funeral expenses. In all the claimant is entitled to a compensation of Rs. 2, 18, 400/- (Rupee two lakh, eighteen thousand, and four hundred) as against the Rs. 5 lakh-odd awarded by the tribunal. The total loss of dependency would be 3300x12x4=Rs. 1,58,400/-. The wife is entitled to Rs. 25,000/- towards loss of consortium, 25,000/- loss of expectancy and 10.000/- funeral expenses. In all the claimant is entitled to a compensation of Rs. 2, 18, 400/- (Rupee two lakh, eighteen thousand, and four hundred) as against the Rs. 5 lakh-odd awarded by the tribunal. She is also entitled to interest at the rate of six per cent from the date of petition till payment. zyxw wxyz The appeal is accordingly dismissed." zyxw 4. Seeking a review of the order dated 25.04.2014 passed by this Court in MAC Appeal No. 77/2009, which is quoted hereinabove, the petitioner contends that on 25.04.2014, this Court, after hearing the matter at length, was pleased to allow the appeal by dictating the judgment in the open Court and liability was shifted to the owner of the vehicle, which, however, have not been reflected in the order dated 25.04.2014, which is quoted hereinabove. According to the review petitioner, the order dated 25.04.2014, having been recorded contrary to what was dictated in the open court, which could be due to the mistake of the stenographer who had taken the dictation in the open Court and subsequently, typed out contrary to what was dictated in the open Court, needs to be reviewed by this Court. 5. On the other hand, Mr. Talukdar and Mr. Barbhuiya, learned counsels appearing for the parties, disputes the contention advanced by the review petitioner and submits that what was dictated in the open Court on that day, has been recorded in the order dated 25.04.2014 by this Court in MAC Appeal No. 77/2009, quoted hereinabove. 6. By that as it may, the scope of power of review of the order passed is very circumscribed. The order passed by this Court can be reviewed primarily on 3(three) grounds, namely, (i). If there is any error apparent on the face of the record; (ii). On discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence was not within the knowledge of the party or could not be produced at the time when the order was passed and (iii). For any other sufficient reason; as provided in Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. 7. On discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence was not within the knowledge of the party or could not be produced at the time when the order was passed and (iii). For any other sufficient reason; as provided in Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. 7. As to whether what had been recorded in the order dated 25.04.2014 by this Court in MAC Appeal No. 77 of 2009, quoted hereinabove, was in fact, correctly recorded, as dictated in the open Court, or not cannot be determined by this Court at this stage. Accordingly, it has to be assumed that what had been recorded in the Order dated 25.04.2014 in the MAC Appeal No. 77 of 2009 have been correctly recorded. Apart from the contention of the review petitioner that the order recorded on 25.04.2014 is contrary to what was dictated in the open Court, no other contention have been raised by the review petitioner, which would bring the case of the review petitioner within the scope and ambit of the Order 47 Rule 1 of the CPC. 8. In that view of the matter, I am of the considered view that the petitioner has not been able to make out a case for exercise of power of review as contemplated under Order 47 Rule 1 of the CPC. Accordingly, review petition being devoid of merit is hereby dismissed. 9. Needless to say, it would be open for the review petitioner to take appropriate recourse, as may be available to the petitioner under the law.