The Delhi High Court has held that the law of review is not founded on sympathy but on sound statutory mandate and long settled judicial dicta..“What is the degree of sympathy that would warrant a review of a decision can never be fixed therefore a nebulous criterion, depending on the nature and degree of feelings that a case may arouse in the adjudicating authority, cannot be the basis for grant of review.”, it has stated..The judgment was passed by a single Judge Bench of Justice Najmi Waziri in a plea seeking review of an order passed by the Court in an accident claim..The petitioner, one Ravi Kumar had met with an accident while driving a vehicle. He sought compensation under the Employees’ Compensation Act, 1923 from his employer, the owner of the vehicle for permanent disability of 50 percent resulting in 100 percent loss of earning capacity..After the claims were allowed against the owner of the vehicle, an appeal was preferred before the High Court by the owner..It was Ravi Kumar’s case that the vehicle involved in the accident was a four-wheeler Ambulance bearing the registration number UP-14-T-1593. However, in appeal, it was shown by the owner that the vehicle bearing registration number UP-14-T-1593 was, in fact, a motorcycle..The appeal was allowed by the Court on the ground that the claim had been allowed in the absence of bare minimum evidence on proof of employment, proof of the accident or any FIR, medical report of injured persons, names of other drivers and other details of employment..In his plea seeking review of this order, the petitioner submitted that the correct registration number of the vehicle being driven by the petitioner was UP-14-DT-1593 which was indeed an ambulance belonging to the petitioner’s employer..It was contended that the petitioner was an illiterate person and he did not understand the finer details of the vehicle number when it was first given by him to the police..The petitioner further argued that this aspect should have been diligently followed up by the then counsel for the petitioner when the issue of the wrong registration number was raised for the first time. However, the then counsel failed to discharge his professional duty diligently..Since the registration of the ambulance and identity of the vehicle was now proven, the order should be reviewed and the case ought to be remanded back for re-adjudication, it was pleaded..After hearing the petitioner, the Court concluded that the petitioner’s case was “fraught with many pitfalls and could lend to an anomaly in the course of administration of justice”..Rejecting the petitioner’s plea for re-adjudication, the Court said,.“For a moment even if the registration number of the van is accepted to be UP-14-DT-1593, and that it was an ambulance, it would still make no difference to, the inexorable conclusion that there was no evidence of employment of the appellant by the owner of the ambulance. The Court had already answered in the negative apropos the question of law i.e. whether in the absence of any material evidence, the claimant can be considered to be an employee of the appellant?”.The Court further observed that the petition was not based on a denial of natural justice or that in the judgment, there was any mistake or error which is apparent on the face of the record or for any other sufficient reason which warrants a review or correction..Instead, the review is sought primarily on the grounds of sympathy, the Court said..The Court then stated,.“..the law of review is not founded on sympathy. It is based on sound statutory mandate and long settled judicial dicta.”.Further quoting from the High Court’s decision in Forech India Ltd. Vs. The Designated Authority & Ors. (2018), the Court recorded in its order,.“Sympathy is an abysmal pit in adjudication proceedings, and cannot become the basis for decision making. For the decision making to be perceived as fair, the process leading to the decision must appear to be transparent. Decisions must be based on cogent reasons and the power to do so must be exercised judiciously.”.While discussing the role of ‘sympathy’ in review pleas, the Court added,.“What is the degree of sympathy that would warrant review of a decision can never be fixed therefore a nebulous criterion, depending on the nature and degree of feelings that a case may arouse in the adjudicating authority, cannot be the basis for grant of review.”.It thus cautioned,.“While the courts would have a companionate disposition in the dispensation of justice, restraint and caution would need to be exercised to ensure that compassion does not lapse into sympathy.”.In view of the above, the review petition was dismissed..The petitioner was represented by advocate Savita Singh..[Read Judgment].Bar & Bench is available on WhatsApp. For real-time updates on stories, Click here to subscribe to our WhatsApp.
The Delhi High Court has held that the law of review is not founded on sympathy but on sound statutory mandate and long settled judicial dicta..“What is the degree of sympathy that would warrant a review of a decision can never be fixed therefore a nebulous criterion, depending on the nature and degree of feelings that a case may arouse in the adjudicating authority, cannot be the basis for grant of review.”, it has stated..The judgment was passed by a single Judge Bench of Justice Najmi Waziri in a plea seeking review of an order passed by the Court in an accident claim..The petitioner, one Ravi Kumar had met with an accident while driving a vehicle. He sought compensation under the Employees’ Compensation Act, 1923 from his employer, the owner of the vehicle for permanent disability of 50 percent resulting in 100 percent loss of earning capacity..After the claims were allowed against the owner of the vehicle, an appeal was preferred before the High Court by the owner..It was Ravi Kumar’s case that the vehicle involved in the accident was a four-wheeler Ambulance bearing the registration number UP-14-T-1593. However, in appeal, it was shown by the owner that the vehicle bearing registration number UP-14-T-1593 was, in fact, a motorcycle..The appeal was allowed by the Court on the ground that the claim had been allowed in the absence of bare minimum evidence on proof of employment, proof of the accident or any FIR, medical report of injured persons, names of other drivers and other details of employment..In his plea seeking review of this order, the petitioner submitted that the correct registration number of the vehicle being driven by the petitioner was UP-14-DT-1593 which was indeed an ambulance belonging to the petitioner’s employer..It was contended that the petitioner was an illiterate person and he did not understand the finer details of the vehicle number when it was first given by him to the police..The petitioner further argued that this aspect should have been diligently followed up by the then counsel for the petitioner when the issue of the wrong registration number was raised for the first time. However, the then counsel failed to discharge his professional duty diligently..Since the registration of the ambulance and identity of the vehicle was now proven, the order should be reviewed and the case ought to be remanded back for re-adjudication, it was pleaded..After hearing the petitioner, the Court concluded that the petitioner’s case was “fraught with many pitfalls and could lend to an anomaly in the course of administration of justice”..Rejecting the petitioner’s plea for re-adjudication, the Court said,.“For a moment even if the registration number of the van is accepted to be UP-14-DT-1593, and that it was an ambulance, it would still make no difference to, the inexorable conclusion that there was no evidence of employment of the appellant by the owner of the ambulance. The Court had already answered in the negative apropos the question of law i.e. whether in the absence of any material evidence, the claimant can be considered to be an employee of the appellant?”.The Court further observed that the petition was not based on a denial of natural justice or that in the judgment, there was any mistake or error which is apparent on the face of the record or for any other sufficient reason which warrants a review or correction..Instead, the review is sought primarily on the grounds of sympathy, the Court said..The Court then stated,.“..the law of review is not founded on sympathy. It is based on sound statutory mandate and long settled judicial dicta.”.Further quoting from the High Court’s decision in Forech India Ltd. Vs. The Designated Authority & Ors. (2018), the Court recorded in its order,.“Sympathy is an abysmal pit in adjudication proceedings, and cannot become the basis for decision making. For the decision making to be perceived as fair, the process leading to the decision must appear to be transparent. Decisions must be based on cogent reasons and the power to do so must be exercised judiciously.”.While discussing the role of ‘sympathy’ in review pleas, the Court added,.“What is the degree of sympathy that would warrant review of a decision can never be fixed therefore a nebulous criterion, depending on the nature and degree of feelings that a case may arouse in the adjudicating authority, cannot be the basis for grant of review.”.It thus cautioned,.“While the courts would have a companionate disposition in the dispensation of justice, restraint and caution would need to be exercised to ensure that compassion does not lapse into sympathy.”.In view of the above, the review petition was dismissed..The petitioner was represented by advocate Savita Singh..[Read Judgment].Bar & Bench is available on WhatsApp. For real-time updates on stories, Click here to subscribe to our WhatsApp.
