TIKMMU DEVI Vs. N H P C

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard. For the reasons set out in the application, I am satisfied that the delay in filing this appeal is bona fide and delay is condoned in the interest of justice.

(2.) The case as urged before this court seems to be that the respondent Nos. 4 to 7 herein (claimants) in Case No. 3 of 2005 before the Commissioner have obtained a judgment by misrepresentation/suppression of facts. In the alternate, it is alleged that there is a glaring mistake on the record which requires to be rectified by awarding compensation to the petitioner herein also.

(3.) On the first aspect, all that I need to say is that there is no power of review with the Commissioner. The case out of which this petition arises seeks a review of the previous order on the grounds which require proof. On the second aspect, in case the award has been obtained by misrepresentation/fraud, the law is well settled that fraud vitiates all judicial acts. [See: S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu v. Jagannath, 1994 1 SCC 1 United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Rajendra Singh, 2000 ACJ 1032 ; N. Khosla v. Rajlakshmi, 2006 3 SCC 605; Hamza Haji v. State of Kerala, 2006 7 SCC 416 and A.V. Papayya Sastry v. Government of Andhra Pradesh, 2007 4 SCC 221 .