- (1.) Special leave granted.
(2.) We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the learned Additional Solicitor General for the respondents. We find from the facts laid on record that the appellant had preferred a claim for Rs. 15. 00 lakhs on account of the death of his daughter Sabba on 24/12/1986 when she was about four months' old. The mother of the girl, a resident of Bhopal, was one of the victims of the gas tragedy and the case put forth was that on account of the gas that she had inhaled the child in the womb was adversely affected. When the child was born there were certain problems which she suffered on account of gas that her mother had inhaled while in the womb. The evidence of Dr M. S. Thakur, who had examined and treated the child, revealed that she had certain symptoms including eruption on the body and smarting ofthe eye as well as breathlessness immediately after her birth when she was examined by him hardly six days thereafter. The prescription produced on record dated 12/8/1986 goes to show that the infant too was the victim of mic poison. The various other medical documents on record corroborated the testimony of the aforesaid medical man. The Deputy Commissioner, who evaluated the evidence placed on record, came to the conclusion that Smt. Nikhat, the wife of the appellant herein, had been a victim of the gas tragedy and she had conceived soon thereafter and the adverse effects of MIC gas were noticed within six days after the child was born and, therefore, the deputy Commissioner awarded compensation of Rs. 1.50 lakhs as against the claim of Rs. 15 lakhs to the appellant, the father of the child. Unfortunately, the Welfare Commissioner, Bhopal Gas Victims tribunal, on a suo motu examination of the record felt that the Deputy Commissioner had committed a gross error and considered it fit to suo motu revise the decision. He issued notice to the appellant dated 4/2/1993 to show cause why the order of the deputy Commissioner should not be upset in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. Thereafter, he heard the appellant's counsel and taking note of the fact that his wife had conceived after the tragedy, came to the conclusion that there could be no direct effect of gas leakage on the pregnancy. The next question he examined was whether if the mother is affected by the gas tragedy the child was likely to suffer adversely even if the pregnancy was post-gas leakage. In this regard, he examined the evidence of Dr Thakur, who had deposed that the adverse effect of the gas could adversely affect a child born in a span of five years after the tragedy. He, however, brushed aside the evidence of Dr Thakur on the ground that it was not supported by any expert opinion on research and hence came to the conclusion that the appellant had failed to prove that if the parents are adversely affected by gas leakage and if the conception is a few months thereafter there would be an adverse effect found on the child and the child could die on that account. We are afraid the Commissioner was not justified in brushing aside the opinion of Dr Thakur, who was himself a medical man. He was a competent witness and besides having treated the child had entered the witness-box to depose that even if a child is conceived after the gas tragedy if the parents have suffered on account of the gas tragedy, the possibility of adverse effects on the child cannot be ruled out. These symptoms were very much present on the body of the child when he examined her six days after the birth. There was, therefore, adverse effect of the MIC gas leak found on the person of the child which this witness had occasion to examine and treat. In such a situation if the Deputy Commissioner accepted the evidence of Dr Thakur it was hardly a case for interference in exercise of suo motu revisional jurisdiction. It was not as if the Deputy Commissioner had based his decision on irrelevant evidence or inadmissible evidence or evidence which could be said to be based on any mistake. He was a medical man, he had been treating patients of MIC gas leak and he had occasion to examine the child and notice the adverse effects of the MIC gas leak on the person of the child and, therefore, in our opinion, he was a competent witness whoseevidence could not have been brushed aside on the ground that it was not supported by any research or that there was any mistake. So long as evidence of Dr Thakur stands and has not been dislodged by reliable evidence we think that the Deputy Commissioner was justified in relying on it and the welfare Commissioner ought not to have exercised suo motu revisional jurisdiction. He committed an error in doing so and we must, therefore, rectify that error.
(3.) In the result, we allow this appeal, set aside the order of the Welfare commissioner and restore the order of the Deputy Commissioner, but make no order as to costs.;