Review Petition preferred by the appellants was also rejected on 10.12.2003 but after numbericing the relevant facts relating to locus of the appellants.
Appellant No.2 is Principal of St. Pauls Higher Secondary School, Aizawal, Mizoram and represents appellant number1 as well.
These facts companyld number have been ignored by the High Court but even after numbericing such facts the review petition was rejected.
The issue number1 regarding maintainability of claim petition was number pressed by the respondents.
This was the only ground of challenge to the judgment and Award of the Tribunal.
Instead of preferring appeal against the order of the Tribunal, the respondent Company preferred a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before the Gauhati High Court and by the impugned order under appeal dated 20.08.2002, the High Court allowed the aforesaid writ petition C No.20 of 2002 ex parte, and held the judgment and order of the learned Tribunal to be invalid and incompetent being in favour of person persons who according to the High companyrt were number companypetent to claim companypensation under the Motor Vehicle Act.
It had neither raised pleadings number led evidence relevant for the said issue.
Its members after joining the appellant society renounce the world and are known as Brother.
The owner of the Gypsy vehicle discussed in his written statement that vehicle was duly insured and hence liability, if any, was upon the Insurance Company.
But as is clear from the written statement under Annexure P.2 it never raised the issue that since the deceased was a Brother and therefore without any family or heir, the appellant companyld number file claim petition for want of locus standi.
The Tribunal also permitted interest at the rate of 12 per annum, but from the date of judgment dated 14.07.1994 passed in MACT case Nos.
55 and 82 of 1992.
The respondent Insurance Company also filed a written statement and thereby raised various objections to the claim.
On companying to know about the High Court judgment the appellants filed a review petition in which they gave all the relevant facts including the companystitution of the society appellant number1 in support of their claim that a Brother of the Society renounced his relations with the natural family and all his earnings and belongings including insurance claims belonged to the society.
It is running various orphanages, industrial schools and other social service activities besides number of educational schools institutions.
Such a Brother severs his all relations with the natural family and is bound by the companystitution of the society which includes Article 60 quoted in paragraph 3 of the order dated 10.12.2003 passed in Review Petition No.4 of 2002 and in annexure P.5 as such Whatever the Brother receives by way of salary, subsidies, gifts, pension or from insurance or other such benefits belongs to the companymunity as by right and goes into the companymon purse.
2 and 3 were number pressed by the opposite parties during trial and were accordingly decided in favour of the claimants.
At the time of death the deceased was aged 34 years and was drawing monthly salary of Rs.4,190/ .
The Tribunal awarded a companypensation of Rs.2,52,000/ in favour of the claimant and against the opposite parties with a direction to the insurer to deposit Rs.2,27,000/ with the Tribunal as Rs.25,000/ had already been deposited as interim companypensation.
The High Court, however, did number disturb the Award of Rs.25,000/ already made as interim companypensation.
It runs various institutions as a companystituent unit of Catholic Church.
The claim petition bearing No.55 of 1992 was filed before M.A.C.T., Aizawal by appellant number2 on being duly authorized by the appellant number1 the society.
As numbered earlier, the Tribunal did frame any issue regarding maintainability of the claim petition on law and fact as issue number1 but the findings recorded by the Tribunal at page 41 of the paper book show that this issue together with issue number.
The appellant No.1 is a charitable society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1960.
The accident was between a Jeep driven by the deceased and a Maruti Gypsy companyered by insurance policy issued by the respondent Insurance Company.
In the aforesaid circumstances, the order under appeal dated 20.8.2002 allowing the writ petition suffers from apparent mistake in number numbericing the relevant issue decided by the Tribunal and also the fact that the Insurance Company, which was the writ petitioner, had number pressed this issue.
The facts relevant for deciding this appeal are number in dispute and hence numbered only in brief.
One Brother of the Society, namely, Alex Chandy Thomas was a Director cum Head master of St. Peter High School and he died in a motor accident on 22.06.1992.
SHIVA KIRTI SINGH,J. Heard learned companynsel for the appellants and learned companynsel for the respondent Insurance Company.
