Nanik Sewa Vs. State of Orissa - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
- motor vehicles act, 1988 [c.a. no. 59/1988]section 173(1) proviso; [d. biswas, amitava roy & i.a.ansari, jj] appeal without statutory deposit but within limitation/or extended period of limitation maintainability - held, if the provision of a statute speaks of entertainment of appeal, it denotes that the appeal cannot be admitted to consideration unless other requirements are complied with. the provision of sub-section (1) of section 173 permits filing of an appeal against an award within 90 days with a rider in the first proviso that such appeal filed cannot be entertained unless the statutory deposit is made. the period of limitation is applicable only to the filing of the appeal and not to the deposit to be made. it, therefore, appears that an appeal filed under section 173 cannot be entertained i.e. cannot be admitted for consideration unless the statutory deposit is made and for this purpose the court has the discretion either to grant time to make the deposit or not. no formal order condoning the delay is necessary, an order of adjournment would suffice. the provisions of limitation embodied in the substantive provision of the sub-section (1) of section 173 of the act does not extend to the provision relating to the deposit of statutory amount as embodies in the first proviso. therefore an appeal filed within the period of limitation or within the extended period of limitation, cannot be admitted for hearing on merit unless the statutory deposit is made either with the memo of appeal or on such date as may be permitted by the court. no specific order condoning any delay for the purpose of deposit under first proviso to sub-section (1) of section 173 is necessary. [new india assurance co. ltd. v md. makubur rahman, 1993 (2) glr 430 and new india assurance co. ltd. v smt rita devi, 1997(2) glt 406, approved. new india assurance co. ltd. v birendra mohan de, 1995 (2) gau lt 218 (db) and union of india v smt gita banik, 1996 (2) glt 246, are not good law]. - it was stated that while families of some deceased persons were paid rupees one lakh, others like petitioner were paid rs.pasayat, j.1. petitioner has by a letter moved this court for a direction to the state government to pay adequate compensation to her for the death of her son dipak behera who lost his life in an agitation protesting against implementation of mandal commission's recommendation. it was stated that while families of some deceased persons were paid rupees one lakh, others like petitioner were paid rs. 25,000/-.2. in a counter-affidavit filed the state government had initially taken a stand that rs. 1,00,000/- was paid in case of loss of life of a student and in case of others, it was fixed at rs. 25,000/-. we had asked the state government to justify the differentiation. the initial stand was that the amount was not paid as compensation, as question of compensation was not one of the terms of reference to the commission headed by hon'ble justice g. b. patnaik. the amount was paid on a compassionate ground out of chief minister's relief fund.3. compensation means anything given to make things equivalent, a thing given to or to make amends for loss, recompense. the expression 'compensation' is distinct from damages. former expression is ordinarily not used as an equivalent to the latter, although often both are measured by the same rule. the term 'compensation1 as pointed out in the oxford dictionary signifies that which is given in recompense as equivalent rendered; damages on the other hand, constitute the sum of money claimed or adjudged to be paid in compensation for loss or injury sustained. compensation essentially is a return for a loss or damage sustained. justice requires that it should be equal in value, although not alike in kind. in black's law dictionary compensation is described as an act which a court orders to be done, or money which a court orders to be paid, by a person whose acts or omissions have caused loss or injury toanother in order that thereby the person damnified may receive equal value for his loss, or be made whole in respect of his injury. it is very difficult a task to put a value of human life. no wholesome formula can be provided to assess it.4. mr. s. p. mishra, learned addl. government advocate on instruction submits that state government on principle has agreed to maintain a parity, and to pay rs. 1,00,000/- to the family of each person who had lost his life on the basis of recommendation made by the commission headed by hon'ble justice g. b. patnaik. it is stated that differential amount shall be paid within four months.5. the writ application is disposed of accordingly.p.c. naik, j.6. i agree.