State of Madhya Pradesh and anr. Vs. Pawan Kumar and anr.

.....it cannot be said in a hyper-technical manner that an order passed in a writ petition, if there is assail to the order emerging from the inferior tribunal or subordinate courts has to be treated all the time for all purposes to be under article 227 of the constitution of india. it would depend upon the real nature of the order passed by the learned single judge. the pleadings also assume immense significance. it would not be an over emphasis to state that an order in a writ petition can fit into the subtle contour of articles 226 and 227 of the constitution in a composite manner and they can co-inside, co-exist, overlap or imbricate. in this context it is apt to note that there may be cases where the single judge may feel disposed or inclined to issue a writ to do full and complete justice because it is to be borne in mind that article 226 of the constitution is fundamentally a repository and reservoir of justice based on equity and good conscience. it will depend upon factual matrix of each case. dr. jaidev siddha v. jaiprakash siddha, 2007(2) mpjr (fb) 361: air 2007 mp 269 (fb) is not impliedly overruled in view of dismissal of slp preferred against order reported in rama and company v. state of madhya pradesh [2007 (2) mpjr 229 (db) (mp)]. bhawani singh, c.j. 1. this appeal is directed against the award dated 6.12.1999 passed by the claims tribunal, umaria, in claim case no. 5 of 1999.2. the accident took place on 10.10.95 at 12 noon. claimant pawan kumar suffered fracture 3' above ankle, when jeep no. mpz 6742 driven rashly and negligently hit scooter on which claimant pawan kumar (aged about 18 years) was a pillion rider. the claimant sustained injuries on other parts of body also. he was shifted to hospital at jabalpur and was treated for some days. as a result of this accident, there is shortening to the extent 1.5 cm. compensation of rs. 13,60,680 has been claimed.3. the non-claimants have denied the accident. they stated that the scooter was being driven at a fast speed and due to which, the claimant could not control the scooter and struck against the wall resulting in an accident.4. the tribunal found substance in the plea taken by the claimant and awarded compensation of rs. 1,43,680. the award has been challenged by the appellants/ state through this appeal.5. mr. n. nagrath, learned counsel for the state, submits that the award is liable to be set aside for the reason that the compensation awarded for personal injury and medical treatment is unduly high. this submission is opposed by the learned counsel for the respondent-claimant and it is stated that looking to the nature of injuries, pain and suffering, the compensation awarded is quite reasonable.6. after considering the respective submissions of learned counsel for the parties, we are of the view that the compensation awarded by the tribunal is quite reasonable. no case for interference is made out.7. with respect to payment of compensation for medical treatment, the statement of the claimant is that he had to take treatment for number of months. it is stated by the doctor that the claimant must have spent rs. 60,000 to rs. 80,000 on treatment. with this background, it cannot be said that the award of compensation against this head is.....