IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
A.HARIPRASAD, T.V.ANILKUMAR, JJ.
Rajila @ Rajila Ayoob, W/o.Ayoob - Appellant
Versus
The Oriental Insurance Company Limited - Respondent
Review Petition No…………of 2020 (R.P.96/2020) in R.P.No.1116 of 2018 in M.A.C.A.No.1467 of 2017
Decided on : 04-03-2021
Review Petition - Motor Vehicles Act - Section 173 - Order XXIII Rule 3 - Order XLVII Rule 9 - Summary
Fact of the Case:
The review petitioner filed a petition under Section 166 of the MV Act seeking compensation for injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident. After an appeal, a compromise agreement was reached, and a judgment was passed. The review petitioner filed a review petition, which was dismissed. Subsequently, a second review petition was filed, contesting the validity of the earlier compromise agreement.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that a second review petition cannot be entertained, as the earlier counsel had the authority to compromise on behalf of the review petitioner, and the settlement was in the best interest of the review petitioner. The court also emphasized the finality of judgments and the limitations on filing successive review petitions.
Issues: The main issue was whether a second review petition could be entertained, challenging the validity of a compromise agreement reached in an earlier appeal.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the limitations set by Order XLVII Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the authority of the counsel to compromise on behalf of the party, and the finality of judgments.
Final Decision: The court rejected the second review petition, emphasizing that the earlier counsel had acted competently on behalf of the review petitioner, and the settlement was in the best interest of the review petitioner. The court also highlighted the limitations on filing successive review petitions.
ORDER :
Hariprasad, J.
Every dispute brought up before a judicial authority for determination, be it a court or a tribunal, no doubt, should culminate in a final decision at some point. Law always favours finality of the litigation and frowns upon its perpetuity. Even when a statute permits a cause to be moved from the original authority to the appellate forum or provides for review as a measure to correct the mistakes in the decision, the adjudication should come to an end at some point. This is not based on any assumption that the highest authority will always be right, but on the fundamental reason that certainty and finality are the essential attributes required for the credibility of the justice dispensation system. This general proposition is embodied in Order XLVII Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 in short, "the Code"). It enunciates that no application to review an order made on an application for a review or a decree or order passed or made on a review shall be entertained.
2. We are called upon to decide the question whether this Court can allow a claim petitioner to seek a second review of the appellate judgment passed by this Court under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (in short, "MV Act"), against which an earlier review petition filed has already been dismissed. As a general proposition, it can be said that this Court, while deciding appeals under the MV Act, possesses all the powers under the Code besides the constitutional powers. Yet, can a second review be permitted as a matter of course?
3. Short facts essential for disposal of the matter are thus: Review petitioner filed a petition under Section 166 of the MV Act seeking compensation on account of multiple injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident. The accident occurred on 15.07.2008. At that time, the review petitioner was aged 20 years. She was pursuing tailoring as her profession. While the review petitioner was sitting in the sit-out of her house, a mini lorry dashed into her house causing serious injuries to her. She sustained multiple comminuted fractures involving postero-superior aspect of vertebral body and suffered severe damage to vertebral column. Her spinal code was also badly injured. Resultantly, she has become paraplegic and totally bed ridden. Doctors assessed her permanent whole body disability as 100%. It is an undisputed fact that she is completely bed ridden with no hope of coming back to normal life.
4. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (in short, "MACT"), after considering the oral and documentary evidence, awarded a total compensation of Rs.18,42,653/- with 9% interest from the date of filing the petition till realisation of the amount.
5. Dissatisfied with the award amount, the review petitioner filed an appeal as M.A.C.A.No.1467 of 2017 before this Court. The respondent insurance company entered appearance in the appeal through their standing counsel. While so, the matter was settled between the parties and a compromise agreement was executed and signed by the counsel for appellant (review petitioner) and the manager of the insurance company. The compromise agreement is dated 07.11.2018. In accordance with the compromise, a judgment was passed by the learned single Judge of this Court on 07.11.2018. It reads thus:
2. When the matter came up for hearing, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the parties have settled the matter for a total sum of Rs.10,85,000/- (Rupees Ten
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.