Back
2013 Supreme(Mad) 1337
MADRAS HIGH COURT
S.Manikumar, J.
Indira & Another – Petitioners
Versus.
Kuppu; the National Insurance Co. Ltd., Thirumangalam Branch; D.Dhanalakshmi – Respondents
A.E.No.21 of 2013
Decided On : March 18, 2013
Ms.N.Manjubharkavi, Mr.A.Shanmugaraj, Advocates for the appearing parties.
A civil revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India would not lie against a decree passed by a Lok Adalat constituted under the Legal Services Authority Act, 1987, as it is not a Court or Tribunal subordinate to the High Court. However, the High Court has the power to review its own orders and correct any errors apparent on the face of the record.
Headnote:
The Madras High Court held that a civil revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India would not lie against a decree passed by a Lok Adalat constituted under the Legal Services Authority Act, 1987, as it is not a Court or Tribunal subordinate to the High Court. However, the High Court has the power to review its own orders and correct any errors apparent on the face of the record. In this case, the High Court found that there was a miscarriage of justice and error apparent on the face of the record, and therefore, it exercised its power of review to set aside the award passed by the Lok Adalat.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a claim for compensation arising out of a fatal accident. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal awarded compensation to the legal representatives of the deceased. The legal representatives filed an appeal seeking enhancement of compensation. The appeal was referred to the High Court Legal Services Committee, Lok Adalat, for settlement. The Lok Adalat passed an award, which was challenged by the legal representatives of the deceased by way of a writ petition. The writ petition was returned by the Registry, stating that a writ petition would not lie and the petitioners were asked to file a civil revision petition. The legal representatives filed a civil revision petition, which was challenged by the insurance company on the ground of maintainability.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court held that a civil revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India would not lie against a decree passed by a Lok Adalat constituted under the Legal Services Authority Act, 1987, as it is not a Court or Tribunal subordinate to the High Court. However, the High Court has the power to review its own orders and correct any errors apparent on the face of the record. In this case, the High Court found that there was a miscarriage of justice and error apparent on the face of the record, and therefore, it exercised its power of review to set aside the award passed by the Lok Adalat.
Issues: 1. Whether a civil revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India would lie against a decree passed by a Lok Adalat constituted under the Legal Services Authority Act, 1987? 2. Whether the High Court has the power to review its own orders and correct any errors apparent on the face of the record?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. A civil revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India would not lie against a decree passed by a Lok Adalat constituted under the Legal Services Authority Act, 1987, as it is not a Court or Tribunal subordinate to the High Court. 2. The High Court has the power to review its own orders and correct any errors apparent on the face of the record.
Final Decision: The High Court set aside the award passed by the Lok Adalat and remanded the matter back to the Lok Adalat for fresh consideration.
S.Manikumar, J.
On the question of Maintainability of a Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging an Award passed by the Lok Adalat-I, by a retired Judge of this Court, the matter is placed before me, for consideration. Earlier, by circulation, the writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has been returned by the Registry, stating that a writ petition would not lie and the petitioners have been asked to file a Civil Revision Petition. Now the Registry has raised objections to the maintainability of the Civil Revision Petition.
2. In an accident, which occurred on 23.01.2003, a 36 year old, Patrolling Officer and Ex-Military Havildar, died. His wife, aged 32 years, minor daughter, aged 2 years, claimed compensation of Rs.10,00,000/-. According to them, the deceased earned Rs.7,450/-, at the time of accident. Ex.P8 - Degree Certificate issued by Madras University, Ex.P9 - Transfer Certificate issued by Madras University, Ex.P10 - Military Department Discharge and Recommendation Certificate, Ex.P11 - Military Training Certificate, Ex.P12 - Computer Literacy Cadre Certificate, Ex.P13 - Bank Pass Book and Ex.P14 - Salary Certificate were produced to support avocation. As per Ex.P14 - Salary Certificate, the deceased was paid Rs.7,450/- as monthly salary. PW.2, is the Personal Manager of M/s.Force I Security Services and he has deposed that the deceased was working as a Patrolling Supervisor from 28.07.2001 to 25.01.2003. As per the entry in Ex.P13 - Pass Book, the Tribunal has noticed a sum of Rs.1,932/- had been received by the deceased as pension for his military services. Though Ex.P15 - Authorisation Letter has been given to the Personal Manager of M/s.Force I Security Services, to speak about the avocation and salary of the deceased, by observing that PW.2, was not the direct signatory of Ex.P14 - Salary Certificate and considering his testimony that he has no direct knowledge of the details of the said certificate and in the absence of production of Pay Register, the Claims Tribunal has fixed the monthly income at Rs.3,000/- and after deducting 1/3rd towards the personal and living expenses of the deceased, computed the loss of contribution to the family, by applying 15' multiplier and quantified the same at Rs.3,60,000/-. That apart, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.18,000/- towards loss of consortium, Rs.20,000/- towards medical expenses, Rs.10,000/- towards loss of love and affection and Rs.2,000/- for Funeral Expenses. Altogether, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.4,10,000/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum, from the date of petition, till the date of deposit. Out of which, a sum of Rs.50,000/- has already been deposited under 'No Fault Liability'. Not satisfied with the quantum of compensation, C.M.A.No.3342 of 2009. has been filed, for enhancement of compensation of Rs.5,90,000/-.
3. Material on record shows that the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been referred to the High Court Legal Services Committee, Chennai and taken up for settlement on 30th November, 2010. Mrs.ManjubharKavi, learned counsel on record and Mr.Vadivel, representing National Insurance Company Ltd., Thirumangalam, Chennai, were present. The terms of the settlement are as follows:
"2. Aggrieved by the award, the appellants have preferred the present appeal. After due deliberation, both the parties have agreed to enhance the award to a sum of Rs.40,000/- over and above the award of the Tribunal with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit. The 2nd respondent is directed to deposit a sum of Rs.40,000/- within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On such deposit, the appellants/claimants are entitled to withdraw the entire award amount with interest in the same ratio as apportioned by the Tribunal. The minor/2nd appellant's share shall be deposited in anyone of the nationalised banks in reinvestment schem
