Dismissed

Iqbal Hussain @ Ekbal Hussain v. the National Insurance Company Limited and 2 Ors.

Gauhati HC2 May 2023Review.Pet./80/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Gauhati High Court dismissed a review petition in a motor accident compensation matter under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC, holding that no error apparent on the face of the record existed to warrant review.

What did the court decide?

Review Petition No. 80/2022 dismissed as devoid of merit with no error apparent on the face of the record.

Iqbal Hussain @ Ekbal Hussain Vs the National… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Gauhati HC (2023)

¶1

Page No.# 1/4

¶2

GAHC010079912022

¶3

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

¶4

Case No. : Review.Pet./80/2022

¶5

IQBAL HUSSAIN @ EKBAL HUSSAIN S/O LATE MD. ALI HUSSAIN

¶6

RESIDENT OF VILLAGE BIDYAPARA WARD NO. 8, PS AND DIST DHUBRI, ASSAM

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

THE NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED AND 2 ORS REGISTERED HEAD OFFICE AT 3, MIDDLETON STREET, CALCUTTA, 700071, REPRESENTED BY THE ASSTT. MANAGER, GUWAHATI, REGIONAL OFFICE, BHANGAGARH, GUWAHATI 781005

¶9

2:MEHEBUB ALOM S/O LATE MOZIBUR RAHMAN RESIDENT OF VILLAGE JHAGRAPAR PART I PS AND DIST DHUBRI

¶10

ASSAM 783325

¶11

3:JAHIR UDDIN ALI S/O LATE LOKMAN ALI RESIDENT OF VILLAGE KHEWARCHAR PART I PS BILASIPARA DIST DHUBRI ASSAM 78334

¶12

Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. M KHAN

¶13

Advocate for the Respondent : MS. R D MOZUMDAR

¶14

Page No.# 2/4

¶15

:: P R E S E N T ::

¶16

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHIVJYOTI SAIKIA

¶17

For the Review Petitioner: Mr. M. Khan,

¶18

Advocate.

¶19

For the Respondents: Mrs. R.D. Mozumdar, Advocate.

¶20

Date of Hearing : 27.04.2023.

¶21

Date of Judgment : 02.05.2023.

¶22

JUDGMENT AND ORDER (CAV)

¶23

Heard the learned counsel Mr. M. Khan appearing for the review petitioner. Also heard the learned counsel Mrs. R.D. Mozumdar appearing for the respondents.

¶24

2. The present petition has been filed under Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure praying for reviewing the judgment passed by this Court on 04.04.2022 in MACApp./292/2018.

¶25

3. The factual matrix leading to filing of this review petition lies within a very short campus. The driver of erring vehicle did not have a license at all while the accident took place. In fact, the driver was using a license issued to someone else. Therefore, the Insurance Company was relieved of its duty to pay compensation and the owner of the vehicle was directed to pay the compensation.

¶26

4. Aggrieved by the aforesaid direction, the claimant has filed this

¶27

Page No.# 3/4

¶28

review petition.

¶29

5. In order to buttress his argument, Mr. Khan has relied upon the judgment of Supreme Court that was delivered in Parminder Singh v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. , (2019) 7 SCC 217 . In paragraph 7.1 of this judgment, it has been held as under:

¶30

“7.1. This Court in Shamanna v. Oriental Insurance Co.

¶31

Ltd. [ Shamanna v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. , (2018) 9 SCC 650 : (2018) 4 SCC (Civ) 561 : (2019) 1 SCC (Cri) 863] , held that if the driver of the offending vehicle does not possess a valid driving licence, the principle of “pay and recover” can be ordered to direct the insurance company to the pay the victim, and then recover the amount from the owner of the offending vehicle.”

¶32

6. Per contra , Mrs. Mozumdar has submitted that there are no errors apparent on the face of the record and therefore, the review petition is not maintainable. Mrs. Mozumdar has relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Lily Thomas v. Union of India , (2000) 6 SCC 224 . Paragraph 56 of the said judgment reads as under:

¶33

“56. It follows, therefore, that the power of review can be exercised for correction of a mistake but not to substitute a view. Such powers can be exercised within the limits of the statute dealing with the exercise of power. The review cannot be treated like an appeal in disguise. The mere possibility of two views on the subject is not a ground for review. Once a review petition is dismissed no further petition of review can be entertained. The rule of law of following the practice of the binding nature of the larger Benches and not taking different views by the Benches of coordinated jurisdiction of equal strength has to be followed and practiced. However, this Court in exercise of its

¶34

Page No.# 4/4

¶35

powers under Article 136 or Article 32 of the Constitution and upon satisfaction that the earlier judgments have resulted in deprivation of fundamental rights of a citizen or rights created under any other statute, can take a different view notwithstanding the earlier judgment.”

¶36

7. I have given my anxious considerations to the submissions made by

¶37

the learned counsels of both sides.

¶38

8. In order to exercise the power under Order 47 of the CPC, there must be an error apparent on the face of the record. The error contemplated under this provision of law, must be such which is apparent on the face of the record and not an error which is to be fished out and searched. It must be an error of inadvertence.

¶39

9. In the impugned judgment, there are no errors apparent on the face of the record. The view expressed by this Court is based on the merits of the case. I find that there are no such errors as has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner seeking review of the judgment.

¶40

10. I find that the review petition is devoid of merit and stands dismissed accordingly.

¶41

JUDGE

¶42

Comparing Assistant

Iqbal Hussain @ Ekbal Hussain v. the National Insurance Company Limited and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Iqbal Hussain @ Ekbal Hussain v. the National Insurance Company Limited and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

On the Death of Harendra Lahkar, His Legal Heris Vs Rita Sah

Nepal Ch. Das Vs Kanailal Das and 2 Ors.

Sahabuddin Ahmed Vs Mahiuddin Ahmed and Anr.

Taizuddin, Vs the State of Assam and Anr.

Mahima Singh and Anr. Vs the Circle Officer and 3 Ors.

On the Death of Bhogiram Medhi Vs on the Death of Bharat Chandra Das