NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD Vs. URI CIVIL CONSTRUCTIONS
LAWS(J&K)-1999-4-16
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR
Decided on April 15,1999

NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD Appellant
VERSUS
Uri Civil Constructions Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) BY a common judgment dated 28 -01 -1999, Civil Revisions 1/99,3/99,4/99,5/99 and 7/99 involving identical questions of fact and law were disposed of as dismissed. Against the Judgments in all five revision petition(s), review petitions seeking recall of the orders of dismissal have been filled on similar rather same set of facts and circumstances. As in all these review petitions identical questions of fact and law are raised, therefore, they are taken up together.
(2.) DEPENDENTS of victims of the vehicular accident, were ordered to be paid interim compensation of Rs. 50,000/ - each, under section 140 of Motor Vehicle Act on 09 -12 -1995 by the Motor Accident claims Tribunal (District and Sessions Judge) Baramulla. The New India Assurance Co, indemnifies moved the Tribunal for modification of this interim award to the extent of absolving/sparing the Insurance Coy. from payment of the interim award. However, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Baramulla, on 15 -09 -1998, rejected the review/modification application and allowed the original interim award dated 09 -12 -1995 to stand. Against this order of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Baramulla, the New India Assurance filed revision petition(s) accompanied by application(s) seeking condonation of delay. The revision petitions) was/were dismissed by the High Court on 28 -01 -1999.
(3.) THIS dismissal order of 28 -01 -1999 of revisions and condonation applications is sought to be reviewed on the following grounds: - That the revision petitions were listed during the course of Winter Vacation and were dismissed on 29 -01 -1999 in absence of the petitioner. The petitioner could not present himself before the Court as the clerk of the counsel for the petitioner had inadvertently omitted to collect the regular supplementary cause list from the Registry. The petitioner was thereby afforded no opportunity of hearing while dismissing the revision petitions. The Court could not have dismissed the revision petitions on merits in absence of the petitioner as it had to follow the law on the analogy of dismissal of appeals in absence of the party. His application for condonation of delay has been dismissed on wrong construction of the dates regarding payment of stamps and supply of requisite copy by the MACT Baramulla. There is an error apparant on the face of record regarding computation of period of limitation which is a ground for review. That the order does not effectively deal with the points involved in the revision and the MACT being a Court is amenable to the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court. Therefore, the revisions could not have been dismissed on this ground, which too is a ground to warrant review of the order. The review petition is prayed to be accepted, as otherwise, serious miscarriage of justice flows from the dismissal order.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.