important point
When an order not giving liberty to file fresh appeal attains finality, the matter cannot be allowed to agitated again and again.

judgment

R.V. Raveendran, J. —

This appeal relates to compensation payable to a Bhopal gas tragedy victim. The appellant was in the womb of his mother on the fateful day that is, 2/3.12.1984. He was subsequently born on 14.5.1985. An application was made on his behalf for payment of compensation of Rs.50,000/- under the scheme for payment of compensation to the gas victims alleging that the appellant’s pregnant mother was affected by the leaked gas and consequently, the appellant, who was in her womb, was also affected.

2.The Bhopal Gas Leak Disaster (Registration and Processing of Claims) Scheme, 1985 was framed by the Central Government in exercise of power under section 9 of the Bhopal Gas Leak Disaster (Processing of Claims) Act, 1985. Clause 5 thereof provides for categorization and registration of claims. The application on behalf of appellant was considered by the Deputy Commissioner, for Bhopal gas victims. The appellant had been examined and a medical dossier prepared at the time of State-sponsored medical examination including X-ray of chest. The reports of the examination on 25.8.1988 showed that the appellant did not suffer from any disease. Therefore, his condition was recorded as ‘normal’, and the appellant was placed in category ‘A’ under general injuries. This was contested by the appellant’s father on the ground that eversince the time of birth, the appellant had heart and respiratory problems and he was treated as Chautram Hospital, Indore. After a detailed examination of the medial and other records, the Deputy Commissioner passed an order dated 17.6.1996. He held that the appellant had respiratory problems immediately after birth and for a short time thereafter; and that the treatment given to appellant was for cough and cold, fever and other normal ailments. However as the resistance capacity of the appellant was decreased due to ill effect of gas, he was classified under the category ‘temporary partial disability’ falling under Para 5(2)(d) of the Scheme and a compensation of Rs.45,000/- was awarded.

3.An appeal was filed by the appellant claiming compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-. The appeal was allowed in part, by the First Additional Welfare Commissioner for Bhopal by order dated 13.3.1997. The appellate authority noted that the appellant’s heart disease could not be attributed to MIC gas, as that did not affect the heart directly or indirectly. However as appellant suffered from pneumonia immediately after his birth and later as he was suffering from bronchitis in the year 1988 and treatment continued for respiratory problems, he increased the compensation by Rs.10,000/- that is in all Rs.55,000/-.

4.The appellant filed a special leave petition before this Court seeking leave to appeal against the said order of Additional Welfare Commissioner. One of the grounds of challenge was that the Additional Welfare Commissioner had referred to the appellant as ‘deceased’ and that showed non application of mind. (This however apparently was a typographical error as in the subsequent part of the judgment, the Appellate Commissioner had proceeded on the basis that the appellant is alive and discussed the entire history. Be that as it may.) This Court by order dated 4.5.1999 dismissed the special leave petition as withdrawn, recording the submission on behalf of the appellant that he wanted to apply to the Additional Welfare Commissioner for correction of the order.

5.Thereafter, on an application for modification, the matter was again considered by the First Additional Welfare Commissioner. While seeking correction of the order by deletion of the expression ‘deceased’, the appellant also claimed increased compensation of Rs.10 lakhs in view of his continued medical treatment. The application was disposed of by order dated 6.8.1999, correcting the typographical mistake by deleting the word ‘deceased’ used in Paras 2 and 3 of the earlier order dated 13.3.1997. But the Additional Welfare Commissioner refused to reconsider t