Minor Prem Yadav Vs. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. and ors. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
- constitution of india article 215: [m. karpaga vinayagam, cjm, .y.eqbal & amareshwar sahay, r.k. merathia, narendra nath tiwari, jj] contempt proceedings review powers of high court held, article 215 of the constitution vests the high court with all the powers of court of record including the power to punish for its contempt. this special jurisdiction is inherent in a court of record from the very nature of the court itself. the said special power is not subject to the procedural law either of the criminal procedure code or the contempt of courts act. the high court can deal with the matter summarily and can adopt its own procedure. however, if the high court initiates the proceeding as a court of record, principle of natural justice must be applied and the contemner should be given sufficient opportunity to know the accusation and to defend himself. in the instant case, the contemner was served with the notice to show cause. he was well aware of the accusation. he also admitted his guilt. in view thereof, contention of the contemner lawyer that he was not heard on merit of the contempt application and the impugned judgment of punishing petitioner in contempt of court is violative of principles of natural justice, is not tenable. article 215: contempt proceedings review of conviction held, it is the solemn duty of the bench and bar to maintain and uphold the majesty, authority and dignity of the courts for the sustenance and progress of democracy in our country particularly at the juncture when there are number of instances of outside attempt to disintegrate and destroy the democratic set up of our country. such conduct of a member of the bar brings the authority of the court and the administration of justice into disrespect, erodes and undermine the foundation of the judiciary by shaking faith and confidence of the people in the ability of the courts to deliver free and fair justice, it is a deliberate attempt to insult the high court and denigrate the authority and solemnity and court strongly deprecate such attempt made with biased attitude. such indiscriminate allegations against judges, who are the members of the bench, cannot be a ground for review of the impugned judgment. punishment of prohibiting appearance of contemner/lawyer before high court as well as courts under its jurisdiction is based on his repeated convictions for contempt in the past is not violative of article 19(g) of the constitution. no interference in exercise of review jurisdiction is warranted. - , which was driven very rashly and negligently, as a result of which the right hand of the claimant-appellant was badly crushed and his left hand was also fractured.order1. this appeal, by the claimant-appellant, is directed against the judgment and award passed by the motor vehicle accident claims tribunal, dhanbad in m.v. case no. 207 of 2003, whereby it has awarded a sum of rs. 1,10,041/- for the injury sustained by the claimant in a motor vehicle accident.2. the claimant-appellant was dashed by the jeep belonging to b.c.c.l., which was driven very rashly and negligently, as a result of which the right hand of the claimant-appellant was badly crushed and his left hand was also fractured. the tribunal after considering the evidence has assessed the compensation of rs. 1,10,041/-.3. when the appeal was taken up for hearing on the last date, learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the amount of compensation is in a very lower side considering the extent of injury caused to the claimant. learned counsel further submitted that the right fingers and palm have been totally smashed because of the accident.4. in order to find out the extent of injury, we passed order on 3.3.2008 directing the claimant-appellant to appear in person. pursuant to the said order, claimant-appellant appeared in person. we have seen the injury caused to the appellant in his right hand and it appears that the palm of the right hand together with fingers have been smashed and the claimant- appellant is not in a position to do his normal work with the right hand. one of the fingers has been amputated and the rest of the fingers have been crushed and crippled.5. seeing the extent of the injury, we are of the definite view that the amount of compensation awarded by the tribunal is in a lower side. in our view, therefore, in addition to the interim compensation paid to the appellant, he is entitled to get at least rs. 1,50,000/- as compensation.this appeal is, therefore, allowed and the amount of compensation is enhanced to rs. 1,75.000/- inclusive of the amount already paid to the appellant.

Judgment:
ORDER

1. This appeal, by the claimant-appellant, is directed against the judgment and award passed by the Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal, Dhanbad in M.V. Case No. 207 of 2003, whereby it has awarded a sum of Rs. 1,10,041/- for the injury sustained by the claimant in a Motor Vehicle Accident.

2. The claimant-appellant was dashed by the jeep belonging to B.C.C.L., which was driven very rashly and negligently, as a result of which the right hand of the claimant-appellant was badly crushed and his left hand was also fractured. The Tribunal after considering the evidence has assessed the compensation of Rs. 1,10,041/-.

3. When the appeal was taken up for hearing on the last date, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the amount of compensation is in a very lower side considering the extent of injury caused to the claimant. Learned counsel further submitted that the right fingers and palm have been totally smashed because of the accident.

4. In order to find out the extent of injury, we passed order on 3.3.2008 directing the claimant-appellant to appear in person. Pursuant to the said order, claimant-appellant appeared in person. We have seen the injury caused to the appellant in his right hand and it appears that the palm of the right hand together with fingers have been smashed and the claimant- appellant is not in a position to do his normal work with the right hand. One of the fingers has been amputated and the rest of the fingers have been crushed and crippled.

5. Seeing the extent of the injury, we are of the definite view that the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is in a lower side. In our view, therefore, in addition to the interim compensation paid to the appellant, he is entitled to get at least Rs. 1,50,000/- as compensation.

This appeal is, therefore, allowed and the amount of compensation is enhanced to Rs. 1,75.000/- inclusive of the amount already paid to the appellant.