HEMENDRA DUTTA CHOUDHURY Vs. ARUN KUMAR BORDOLOI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) LAW embodies and reflects will of the people. It takes care of the felt necessities of time. It eschews injustice and unjustness, and seeks to promote justice. Fair play in action has to be ensured by it. One cannot, however, advance the cause of justice by shutting the door of justice for one who has every reason to feel aggrieved at the order passed against him because of which he approaches a court to seek redress. A right without a remedy is like a writ in water. We have to remember the maxim "ubi jus ebi remedium."

(2.) THESE opening thoughts focus the controversy with which we are seized in these appeals. A common question relating to maintainability of the appeals has been raised at the threshold and we propose to dispose of the same by this common judgment For disposing of the preliminary objection, it is enough to state that an award of Rs. 4,50,343.00 has been passed in favour of the Respondent in M.A (F) 62 of 1976, and of Rs. 2,50,000/ - in favour of the Respondents in two other cases. This has been done by the learned Member, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal after being satisfied that the vehicle in question which had caused the accident (an Ambassador car bearing registration No. ASZ 2256) was driven negligently because of which it dashed against a scooter driven by AK. Bordoloi, who is Respondent in M.A (F) 62 of 1976, in the pillion of which was late Rajendra Hazarika, whose legal representatives are the Respondent in two other cases. The accident saw various injuries on the person of Bordoloi, but it took the life of Rajendra Hazarika. Bordoloi claimed a sum of Rs. 18,22,000/ - as compensation. The legal representatives of Hazarika came forward demanding a total sum of Rs. 6,53,000/ - on account of loss caused to them. The learned Tribunal has ordered the aforesaid sums as compensation and has ordered the insurer to pay the entire amount. Feeling aggrieved, the insurer along with the owner has filed the present appeals.

(3.) LET us first see whether the owner could have preferred the present appeals. It is apparent that he could have done so if he could be regarded as a person aggrieved. This aspect of the matter has been gone into in detail in Kantilal and Bros. v. Ramarani Debi : 1980 ACJ 501(Cal). In finding out the meaning of this expression, Kantilal (supra) has relied on two important decisions of the Supreme Court. These are Adi Pherozshah Gandhi v. H.M. Seervai : AIR 1971 SC 385 and Bar Council of Maharashtra v. M.V. Deboldar : AIR 1975 SC 2092. After referring to these decisions, it has been held in Kantilal's case that to be a 'person aggrieved' the grievance of the person concerned must be genuine and the same must affect his interest prejudicially. As the owner has not been saddled with any liability in these canes, he cannot have a real and genuine grievance relating to the award made by the learned Tribunal. We are, therefore, satisfied that the insured could not prefer these appeals inasmuch as Section 110 -D of the Motor Vehicles Act, for short the Act, has conferred the right of preferring appeal to a 'person aggrieved' by an award of a Claims Tribunal.