UMA NATH SINGH,J - (1.) C . Misc. No. 23381-CII of 2006 66 days' delay in filing the review application is hereby condoned. C. Misc. No. 23383-CII of 2006 Allowed as prayed for. Review Application No. 104-CII of 2006 Heard learned counsel and perused the judgment of the learned single Judge. The application was a District Attorney who had given the opinion for filing the appeal before this Court in a MACT case wherein an old man of 70 years of age had suffered imputation of one leg and as per the award, only an amount of Rs. 33,500/- was awarded on that account. The legal opinion of the applicant reads as under :- "5. That the learned Court lost sight of the fact that the applicant was 70 years old. He was a retiring hand. He was spent up cartridge. He was rather a burden on the society and his family. He was not earning anything. He has not been incapacitated in earning his livelihood. 8. That the learned court wrongly gave gratuitous nursing. The learned counsel wrongly awarded Rs. 18,500/- for treatment, medicines, transport and special diet. The learned court wrongly granted Rs. 15,000/- for shortening of right lower limb by 1/2 inch because he was 70 years old retiring hand and shortening of 1/2 inch leg did not make him incapacitated in any way in performing his usual daily duties. No data is available with the Tribunal to award Rs. 15,000/- for shortening of right lower limb by 1/2 inch. The learned court fell in error in awarding Rs. 33,500/-. It is, therefore, prayed that appeal may kindly be filed in the Hon'ble High Court. The limitation for filing an appeal expires on or about 8.6.1985. Brief of the case is also enclosed herewith. The certified copy of the judgment is also enclosed for your kind perusal."
(2.) THE observations of the learned Single Judge (the then Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice) reads as under :- "That this opinion had been accepted by the Legal Rmembrancer who is always a very senior judicial officer, is even more horrific. The underlined portion of the opinion, is a stark reflection on the character and obnoxious attitude of the District Attorney and betrays a complete lack of insensitivity on the part of the Legal Remembrancer as well but as the appeal had been filed way back in 1985, is a factor which restrains me from any further comment against them. There is absolutely no justification in interfering with the award passed by the learned Tribunal. The appeal is dismissed with costs of Rs. 10,000/- to be recovered from the District Attorney concerned. The amount so recovered shall be paid to the injured or his successors." On due consideration of the submissions of the learned counsel and perusal of the application, we find no ground to interfere with the order for the reason that only Rs. 33,500/- was awarded for suffering imputation of one leg by the claimant, an old man of 70 years, which appears to be rather a paltry amount in the obtaining circumstances of the case. The aforesaid legal opinion of the applicant also includes a sentence that the claimant is a burden on the society and his family. It is not expected of an incumbent of the office of District Attorney to give such an irresponsible opinion which is unbecoming of the holder of the office.
(3.) HENCE , we are not inclined to interfere with the order imposing cost of Rs. 10,000/- to be paid by the applicant. Accordingly, the application is dismissed. Application dismissed.;