LexBITHIKA MAZUMDAR AND ANR. versus SAGAR PAL AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
B
[2017] I S.C.R. 546
BITH!KA MAZUMDAR AND ANR.
v.
SAGAR PAL"AND ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 1311 of2017)
FEBRUARY OL;·2017
[A. K. SIKRI AND R. K. AGRAWAL, JJ.]
Constitution of India - Art. 227 - Power of superintendence
over all courts by the High Court - Motor accident claim petition
C
- by appellants-legal heirs of deceased, returned by the court on the
ground of territorial jurisdiction - Review petition thereagainst also
dismissed - Petition u!Art. 227 by the appellants - Dismissal by
High Court, on the ground of delay and !aches - On appeal held:
D
E
F
G
No limitation is prescribed for filing application u/Art. 227 -
Petitioner who files such a petition is supposed to file the same
without unreasonable delay and if there is a delay that should be
duly and satisfactorily explained and then the petition could be
entertained.. on merits - On facts, High Court dismissed the petition
holding that though there is no statutory period of limitation
prescribed, such a petition should be filed within a period of
limitation as prescribed for applications u/s. 115 CPC - Sufficient
reasons were given by the ·appellants in the petition filed u/Art.
227 - Moreover, the High Court should have ·a/so kept in mind that
the deceased was the only earning member, died in the said accident
and appellants are the widow and minor daughter of the
deceased - High C-0urt should have considered the revisional
applica{ion on merits rather than dismissing the same - Order of
the High Court is set aside - For awarding compensation, nusltiplier
of 15 is applied, keeping in view the age of the deceased as 40
years and that he was getting a salary of Rs. 5,0001- pm -Appellants
awarded total compensation of Rs. 8 lakhs along with interest @
9% pa - Appellants also entitled to cost of Rs. 50,0001- - Costs -
_Motor accident - Compensation - Delay and !aches.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 1311
of2017.
From the Judgment and Order dated 18.03.201? of the High Court
H
of Calcutta in C. 0. No. 824 of2015.
546
BITHIKA MAZUMDAR AND ANR. v. SAGAR PAL AND ORS.
547
Bijan Kumar Ghosh, Ujjwal Banerjee, Asit Kumar Rari, Ms. Ratna
A
Banerjee, Mrs. Sarla Chandra, Advs. for the Appellants. ·
A.K. Raina, Binay Kumar Das, Advs. for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
A. K. SIKRI, J. I. Leave granted.
2. The appellants herein are the legal heirs of one Gautam
Mazumdar (hereinafter referred to as the 'deceased') who died on
06.05.2007 in a road accident allegedly dueto rash and negligent driving
of goods carriage vehicle, when, according to the appellants, the said
goods carriage vehicle bearing No. W.B.4118002 plying on G.T. Road
towards Durgapur to Asansol came from behind with high speed without
headlights and ran over Gautam Mazumdar, a pedestrian, and fled away
from the place of accident rather tha~ helping the injured. The victim
died on the spot due to the said accident. The vehicle was insured by
respondent No. 3-New India Assurance Company Limited.· The ·
appellants herein (who are the widow and minor daughter of the
deceased) filed the claim for compensation because of the demise of
Gautam Mazumdar in the said accident before the Motor Accidents
Claims Tribunal, City Civil Court, Calcutta (hereinafter referred to as
'MACT'). MACT went ahead with the trial and recorded the evidence ·
of the parties. However, ultimately vi.de jts orders dated 18.06.2009,
MACT held that Kolkata Court did not have territorial J.urisdiction to
entertain the Sl!me and returned the said petition filed· by the appellants
for presentation thereof, in the Court of law .competent to decide the
said claim. The appellants 'filed review petiHon against that order whi~h
was also dismissed vide orders dated l 0.04.2013.
3. Challenging this order,' the appellants filed petition under-Article
227 of the Constitution in the High Court of Calcutta which has been
dismissed by the High Court on the ground of delays and !aches stating
that though MACT had dismissed the. review petition of the appellants ·
vide orders dated 10.04.2013, revisional application challenging that order
was filed only on 03.03.20 l 5 after a delay ofalmost 2 years. Challenging
· that order, the present special leave petition is filed in which we have
granted I.eave as aforesaid.
4. It is an admitted position in law that no limitation is prescribed
·for filing application under Article 227ofthe ConstituExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.