- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Rajender Kumar And Others v. Rambhai And Others
Factual and Procedural Background
Smt. Susheela Bai, a 48-year-old Supervisor in the Women and Child Welfare Department, Government of Karnataka, died on 12-12-1988 when the bus in which she was travelling collided with a lorry. Her children (the appellants) sought compensation of Rs 3,50,000. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal awarded Rs 65,300. On appeal, a Single Judge of the High Court enhanced the award to Rs 96,000 with 12% interest. A further Letters Patent Appeal (LPA No. 176 of 1999) before a Division Bench resulted in an enhanced compensation of Rs 2,55,000, again with 12% interest.
Respondent 2, Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., filed a review petition claiming it had not been given adequate opportunity to be heard during the LPA. On 3-4-2001 the Division Bench allowed the review and reduced compensation to Rs 1,83,000. The present Supreme Court appeal challenges that review order.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the High Court Division Bench correctly exercised its power of review in re-appreciating evidence and reducing the compensation awarded.
- Whether any error apparent on the face of the record justified interference with the final judgment dated 9-8-1999 that had fixed compensation at Rs 2,55,000.
Arguments of the Parties
The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.
Table of Precedents Cited
No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Supreme Court reiterated the settled limitations on the power of review: it may be invoked only when there is an error apparent on the face of the record and permitting the impugned order to stand would lead to a failure of justice. The Court found that the Division Bench, instead of identifying such an error, embarked on a fresh appraisal of evidence and recalculated compensation, which is impermissible in review jurisdiction.
On merits, the Court noted that the deceased earned Rs 2,570 per month and was aged 48. The earlier Division Bench had correctly used a multiplier of 10 to reach Rs 2,55,000, and no illegality or miscalculation was shown that would warrant alteration.
Consequently, the review order was deemed unsustainable both procedurally (lack of reviewable error) and substantively (proper quantum already determined).
Holding and Implications
Appeal Allowed; Review Order Set Aside; Judgment dated 9-8-1999 Restored.
The compensation of Rs 2,55,000 with 12% interest awarded by the High Court Division Bench in LPA No. 176 of 1999 stands reinstated. The decision affirms the limited scope of review jurisdiction but does not create new precedent beyond reinforcing existing principles. No costs were awarded.
Order
1. Leave granted. This appeal filed by the children of the deceased, Smt Susheela Bai who died in a motor accident on 12-12-1988, is directed against the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh reviewing order dated 9-8-1999 and reducing the compensation awarded in favour of the appellants.
2. Shorn of unnecessary details, relevant facts leading to the present proceeding may be stated thus: the accident occurred due to a collision between a bus owned by Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Respondent 3 herein, and a lorry owned by Respondent 1 and insured with Respondent 2. In the said accident, Smt Susheela Bai, who was a passenger in the bus, sustained multiple injuries and expired on the same day. Her children, who are the appellants herein, filed an application claiming Rs 3,50,000 as compensation for death of their mother. The Tribunal on appreciation of the materials on record awarded a sum of Rs 65,300 in favour of the appellants. Feeling aggrieved by the award of the Tribunal, the appellants herein filed an appeal in the High Court.
3. The learned Single Judge who decided the appeal enhanced the compensation and determined the compensation at Rs 96,000 with 12% interest from the date of filing of the claim petition. Still not satisfied with the amount awarded, the appellants preferred Letters Patent Appeal No. 176 of 1999, which was decided by the Division Bench vide the judgment dated 9-8-1999.
4. The Division Bench further enhanced the compensation amount to Rs 2,55,000 with 12% interest. Thereafter, Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Respondent 2 herein, sought review of the judgment on the ground that it was not granted proper opportunity of hearing in the LPA. The Division Bench by the order dated 3-4-2001 allowed the review petition and reduced the compensation amount from Rs 2,55,000 to Rs 1,83,000. The said order is under challenge in the present appeal.
5. On a perusal of the order under challenge it is clear that the High Court without considering the question whether the judgment/order sought to be reviewed suffered from any error, entered upon the exercise of reappreciating the evidence and on such reappreciation of evidence redetermined the compensation by reducing the amount to the extent noted earlier.
6. The limitations on exercise of the power of review are well settled. The first and foremost requirement of entertaining a review petition is that the order, review of which is sought, suffers from any error apparent on the face of the order and permitting the order to stand will lead to failure of justice. In the absence of any such error, finality attached to the judgment/order cannot be disturbed.
7. Coming to the merits of the case, suffice it to say that on perusal of the order, which has been reviewed by the order under challenge did not suffer from any serious illegality, which called for correction by exercise of review jurisdiction.
8. It is relevant to note here that the deceased was holding the post of Supervisor in Women and Child Welfare Department, Government of Karnataka at the time of her death and she was aged about 48 years at that time. The salary drawn by the deceased, as evident from the salary certificate produced as additional evidence was Rs 2570 p.m The multiplier, which had been accepted by the Division Bench in the previous order, was 10. In the circumstances of the case, multiplier of 10 was rightly taken. Thus, on merit also no interference with the order was called for.
9. For the reasons set forth above, both on the ground of maintainability of the petition as well as on merit, the order reviewing the judgment is unsustainable. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The order under challenge is set aside. The judgment passed by the Division Bench in LPA No. 176 of 1999 dated 9-8-1999 is restored. No costs.
Alert