Back
2024 Supreme(Cal) 598
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
SUBHENDU SAMANTA, J.
Aishwarya Sen & Anr. – Appellants
Versus
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. – Respondents
RVW 185 of 2023 With IA No. CAN 1 of 2023 In FMA 197 of 2017
Decided on : 23-02-2024
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. Tapas Dutta.
For the Respondent: Mr. Parimal Kumr Pahari
The grounds for a review must fall within the scope of review as per the relevant legal provisions and should not repeat old and overruled arguments.
Headnote:
Review - Motor Vehicle Accident Compensation - M.V. Act, Section 166 - Summary: The court reviewed a compensation award under Section 166 of the M.V. Act, considering grounds related to correct multiplier, annual income calculation, and interest rate. The court dismissed the review application, citing that the grounds for review were already considered by the appellate court and were not maintainable.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners sought a review of a compensation award for a deceased injured party. The appellate court had enhanced the compensation, leading to the review application.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the grounds for review were not maintainable as they had already been considered by the appellate court.
Issues: The main issue was whether the review application was justified based on the grounds presented by the petitioners.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the grounds for review were not maintainable as they were already considered by the appellate court and did not fall under the scope of review as per the relevant legal provisions.
Final Decision: The review application was dismissed as meritless.
JUDGMENT :
Subhendu Samanta, J.
1. This instant petition is filed for review of judgment dated 12.5.2023 passed in FMA No. 197 of 2017(Aishwarya Sen & Anr. Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd.)
2. The brief fact of the case is that the present petitioners are the legal heirs of one injured(deceased) namely, Manab Sen. Initially, the injured(deceased) preferred an application before the learned Tribunal for getting compensation. During the pendency of the said application the claimant died and the present petitioners are represented in the claim application as the legal heirs.
3. After hearing the parties and also after receiving the evidences from the claimant as well as Insurance Company, the learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.10,00,000/-together with interest in favour of the claimants under Section 166 of the M.V. Act.
4. Being aggrieved by the said award, the insurance Company preferred an appeal being No. FMA 804 of 2010. The legal heirs of the original claimant/injured filed another appeal being FMA no.197 of 2017 against the said award dated January 13, 2010.
5. The learned appellant court has heard both the appeal analogously has passed the impugned judgment on 12.5.2023, thereby, enhanced the award of compensation to the tune of Rs.27,66,475/-.
6. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said award, the instant review application has been filed by the present petitioner/claimants/
7. Mr. Tapas Dutta, learned advocate for the petitioner submits that the grounds of review as follows:
A. Learned Appellant Court has failed to appreciate the correct multiplier in this case. Learned appellant Court adopted the multiplier 15. The correct multiplier would be 16.
B. The annual income of the deceased was not correctly calculated by the learned Appellate Court, it would be gross total income less income tax paid for the last financial year.
C. Rate of interest would be 9% instead of 6%.
D. The Appellate Court has failed to provide the monetary relief on the different heads i.e. pain and suffering, permanent disability, loss of amenities, happiness, enjoyment, expectation, discomfort, hardship etc.
8. On the above ground, he submits that the order passed by the learned Appellate Court need be modified.
9. Mr. Rajesh Singh, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the Insurance Company submits that the learned Appellate Court has heard both the appeal analogously. After considering the submission of the parties and after considering the materials on record, the learned Appellate Court has enhanced the compensation from Rs.10,00,000/-to more than Rs.27,00,000/-. The grounds mentioned in the review application is not maintainable. The claimants may prefer an appeal before the Hon’ble Apex Court against the order passed by the 1st Appellate Court but the alleged grounds under the disguise of review cannot be allowed.
10. Refuting the contention of the learned advocate for the insurance company, Mr. Dutta, learned advocate submits that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in M. M. Thomas Vs. State of Kerala reported in (2000) 1 SCC 666 has categorically discussed about the power of High Court to entertain the review application.
11. He referred paragraph 14 of M. M. Thomas(Supra), which is quoted below:
“14. High Court as a Court of Record, as envisaged in Article 215 of the Constitution, must have inherent powers to correct the records. As Court of Record envelopes all such powers whose acts and proceedings are to be enrolled in a perpetual, memorial and testimony. A Court of Record is undoubtedly a superior Court which is itself competent to determine the scope of its jurisdiction. The High Court, as a Court of Record, has a duty to itself to keep all its records correctly and in accordance with law. Hence, if any apparent error is noticed by the High Court in respect any orders passed by it the High Court has not only power, but a duty to correct it. The High Court’s power in that regard is plenary. In Naresh Shridhar Mirajkar and Others Vs. State of Ma
