Sukhnandan Vs. South Eastern Coalfields Ltd. and ors.

.....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)]. - we consider it safe to take her income as rs. on deposit the amount shall be disbursed to the claimant keeping in mind the well settled guidelines laid down by the supreme court......was made to section 140 of the motor vehicles act, 1988 that the compensation under no fault liability too was rs. 50,000 hence the claimant should be awarded rs. 4,50,000 as claimed.5. the deceased was the wife of the claimant. she was aged about 25 years, at the time of the accident. she was a vegetable vendor. the original pleading that she was earning rs. 300 per month by selling vegetables was amended by substituting rs. 750 per month as her income. claimant sukhnandan, aw 1, had deposed that she was earning rs. 25 per day. we consider it safe to take her income as rs. 750 per month. the dependency of the claimant would thus be rs. 500 per month, i.e., rs. 6,000 per annum. taking a multiplier of 13 the compensation comes to rs. 78,000. to this rs. 2,000 is added as funeral expenses and rs. 5,000 for loss of consortium. the total compensation comes to rs. 85,000 which in our opinion would be just and proper compensation. thus the appellant is entitled to get the sum of rs. 85,000 with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of application till realisation.6. respondents are directed to deposit the amount less the amount already deposited within a period of two months from the date of supply of certified copy of this order failing which the amount shall carry interest at the rate of 15 per cent per annum. on deposit the amount shall be disbursed to the claimant keeping in mind the well settled guidelines laid down by the supreme court.7. the award of claims tribunal shall be substituted as indicated hereinabove. counsel's fee rs. 500, if pre-certified.