AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
A.N. Venugopala Gowda, J.—Having heard learned Counsel on both sides and being satisfied with the cause shown, more particularly, the fact that filing of MFA. No. 6310/2011 by the Insurance Company was not brought to the notice of this Court when MFA. No. 2552/2011 filed by the claimant for enhancement was heard and allowed. Delay of 333 days in filing this petition having been satisfactorily explained in I.A. No. 1/2013, IA. No. 1/2013 is allowed and delay in filing the review petition is condoned. With the consent of learned Counsel on both sides, the review petition is taken up for consideration for final disposal.
Heard Sri V. Narayanaswamy and Sri Sumanth L. Bharadwaj, learned Advocates and perused the record.
MVC. No. 4681/2009 filed by respondent No. 1 herein against the petitioner and respondent No. 2 was allowed in part by the MACT on 12.11.2010. The claimant filed MFA. No. 2552/2011, being not satisfied with the award passed by the MACT i.e., for enhancement of compensation amount. Sri. V. Narayanaswamy, Panel Advocate of respondent -- Insurance Company, present in the Court was directed to accept notice on behalf of the Insurance Company, the matter was taken up for final hearing and the appeal was decided on 14.03.2012. The impugned judgment and award passed by MACT was modified and the compensation amount payable by the respondent to the claimant was determined at Rs. 1,63,600/- with interest, as against the sum of Rs. 1,43,000/- with interest awarded by the MACT.
The respondent -- Insurance Company in the claim petition filed before the MACT being aggrieved, has filed MFA. No. 6310/2011 on 18.07.2011, assailing the judgment and award dated 12.11.2010 passed in MVC. No. 4681/2009 allowing the claim petition in part and directing the payment of compensation as above. The fact of filing of MFA. No. 6310/2011 was not brought to the notice of this Court when MFA. No. 2552/2011 was heard and decided on 14.03.2012. I am satisfied that if the judgment and award passed in MFA. No. 2552/2011 dated 14.03.2012 is allowed to stand, there would be miscarriage of justice, inasmuch as MFA. No. 6310/2011 would get'' negated without providing an opportunity of hearing to the appellant therein. Since Sri. Narayanaswamy, had no knowledge of filing of MFA. No. 6310/2011 by the Insurance Company, the same was not brought to the notice of this Court by him. MFA. No. 2552/2011 was decided on 14.03.2012 without noticing the pendency of MFA No. 6310/2011. Since there is an error apparent on the face of the record, this review petition is required to be allowed.
In the result, review petition is allowed and the judgment and award dated 14.03.2012 passed in MFA. No. 2552/2011 is recalled. As a result, MFA. No. 2552/2011 is restored for consideration and decision in accordance with law.