Failure to apply binding statutes and precedents constitutes reviewable error under Order 47 Rule 1 of CPC: J&K High Court

a bank of Justice M. A. Chowdhary He clarified that courts must comply with applicable statutes and precedents, especially those established by the Supreme Court, to ensure that rulings are free of errors.

Shedding light on the mandate of Order 47 Rule 1 CPC, which allows a review of a sentence if certain criteria are met, such as discovery of new evidence, an error in the record or other sufficient reasons, Justice Chowdhary highlighted the importance of correct application of the law.

It observed that if a legal provision is not applied correctly, or if a relevant binding precedent cited by the parties is ignored, it constitutes a palpable error, which makes the judgment susceptible to review as it affects its correctness.

The court made these observations while hearing a review petition filed by Ram Prasad seeking reconsideration of the High Court’s earlier judgment. The petitioners argued that there were obvious errors in the record.

The main issue concerned the misclassification of the deceased, Madan Lal Gupta, as married, which resulted in an incorrect deduction of one-third of his income for personal expenses instead of the correct deduction of 50%, applicable to singles .

Furthermore, the petitioners noted that the Court, in deciding compensation, did not take into account a 40% increase in income under “future prospects”, in line with the binding precedents established by the Supreme Court.

After considering the competing arguments, the court stressed the importance of adhering to applicable statutes and binding judicial precedents and noted:

“When a case is decided, the Court considers the claim and the relief requested, applies the law that is applicable and the law that is established, particularly when it is by a Constitutional Chamber. If the applicable law is not applied, the Court The ruling becomes susceptible to review Similarly, when a binding judgment of the Supreme Court is ignored, it constitutes a palpable error, evident on the record, which justifies invoking review powers under Order 47 Rule 1 of the CPC.”

The Court emphasized that binding precedents must be followed to maintain judicial consistency. In light of this, the Court considered that the failure to apply the correct type of deduction and the omission of future prospects merited review.

Quoting National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi and Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation The court reiterated the principle of future prospects and provided guidelines on the calculation of compensation, including the multiplier method and the treatment of personal expenses of singles.

Therefore, it revised the compensation and enhanced the previous compensation and directed the insurance company to release the enhanced amount with the same rate of interest as had earlier been awarded by the Tribunal.

Case Title: Ram Prasad v New India Assurance Co Ltd

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 292

Click here to read/download judgment