Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010163162024 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : CRP/90/2024 SUBALA BALA ROY W/O- LATE SATISH CHANDRA ROY, VILL.- JINKATA PART-II, P.O. MAHAMAYAHAT, P.S. GOLAKGANJ-783335, DIST. DHUBRI, ASSAM VERSUS PRASENJIT BARMAN @ BARMA AND 3 ORS S/O- LATE PARESH NATH BARMAN, VILL. AND P.O. HALAKURA, DIST. DHUBRI, ASSAM 2:ICICI LOMBARD GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. MADHAB TOWER 3RD FLOOR G.S. ROAD RUKMINI GAON GHY-781022 ASSAM 3:YUBA SANGHA CLUB VILL.- JHAGRARPAR PART-III P.O. AND DIST. DHUBRI ASSAM 4:AMINUR ALI S/O- NUR ALI VILL.- JHAGRARPAR PART-I P.O. AND DIST. DHUBRI ASSA Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A R AGARWALA, MR ADITYA AGARWALA Advocate for the Respondent : MR T KALITA (R2), L DAS (R1),MR P J BORAH (R1),MR B PRASAD (R1),MR. A KAKATI (R2) Page No.# 2/5 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA ORDER 01.11.2025 1. Heard Mr. A.R. Agarwala, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. B. Prasad, learned counsel for the respondent no.1 as well as Mr. T. Kalita, learned counsel for the respondent no.2. 2. This application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner impugning the order dated 29.06.2024 passed by the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dhubri in MAC Case No.65/2021(D) by which the prayer for framing additional issues was rejected by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dhubri. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has filed the MAC Case No.65/2021(D) seeking compensation on account of death of her daughter in a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. He submits that by order dated 22.02.2025 the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dhubri allowed an application filed by the respondent no.1 in this case for impleading him as claimant no.2 in the said MAC Case on the ground that he has happens to be the husband of the deceased. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted the present petitioner has raised the issue of validity of the marriage of her daughter with the claimant no.2, therefore, he had filed an application on 21.05.2024 which was registered as Petition No.865/2024 proposing following issues : (i) Whether the petitioner no.2 is the legally married husband of the Page No.# 3/5 deceased. (ii) Whether the petitioner no.2 is a legal representative and dependent of the deceased. He submits that as only a dependent can take claim for compensation in the event of death of a person on whom the said person was dependent. The issue proposed by the present petitioner where necessary to decide the MAC Case No.65/2021(D). He however submits that while passing the impugned order the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dhubri had ignored this vital aspect. He therefore submits that the impugned order dated 29.06.2024 passed by the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dhubri in MAC Case No.65/2021(D) is liable to be set aside. 5. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent no.1 has submitted that this Revision Petition is not maintainable in as much as the order impugned in this case is an Interlocutory Order and therefore under proviso to Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure the revision is bared. He further submits that the question as to whether the claimant no.2 is the legal representative of the deceased has tentatively already decided by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal by its order dated 22.02.2022 while allowing the prayer for impleadment of claimant no.2 in the said claim case. He further submits that the said order has not been impugned by the present petitioner and therefore this Revision Petition is liable to be dismissed. On the other hand, Mr. T. Kalita, learned counsel for the respondent no.2 (Insurance Company) has also made similar submissions like that of the learned counsel for the respondent no.1. He also submits that the order dated 22.02.2022 has not been challenged by the petitioner. He further submits that while deciding the issue as to whether the claimants are entitled to get in compensation as claim for the issue of Page No.# 4/5 dependency of the claimants would otherwise also have to be decided and therefore this Revision Petition is liable to be dismissed. 6. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsels for both sides. Thought the plea of maintainability of this Revision Petition has been raised by the learned counsel for the respondents, on the ground that it is barred by proviso to Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, however, it appears that this instant Revision Petition has not been filed under Section 115 of the CPC but under Article 227 of the Constitution of India which pertains to the supervisory jurisdiction of this court over the courts and Tribunal Subordinate to be. In the case of Shalini Shyam Shetty and Another Vs. Rajendra Shankar Patil reported in (2010) 8 SCC 329. The Apex Court has observed that the High Court’s cannot, on the drop of a hat, in exercise of powers of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, interfere with the orders of the Tribunals or Courts inferior to it, nor can it in exercise of this power act as a court of appeal over the orders passed by such subordinate courts or Tribunals subordinate to it. In the instant case, it appears that the order dated 22.02.2022, by which the Tribunal had allowed the respondent no. 2 (i.e., claimant no. 2) to be impleaded as a party in MAC Case No. 54/2021(D), has not been put to challenge. 7. The mere fact that the prayer for impleadment of the claimant no.2 was allowed itself shows that the Tribunal shall have to decide the question of dependency while deciding the main issue as to whether the claimant no.2 is entitled to get any compensation as claimed. 8. The present petitioner can very well raise his plea regarding the pendency of the claim of claimant no. 2, who is the deceased daughter of claimant no. 1, Page No.# 5/5 before the Tribunal, even if the issues proposed by the petitioner in the present form are not framed by the Claims Tribunal. It is well settled proposition of law that in exercise of its powers and superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the High Court cannot interfere to correct mere errors of law or the fact on just because another view namely one taken by the Tribunal is a possible view. 9. This Court of considered opinion that the Tribunal had not exceeded its jurisdiction while passing the impugned judgment justifying interference by this court in the impugned order in exercise of its power of superintendent under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for the reasons on the discussions made in forgoing paragraph as well as observation made before hearing, this Revision Petition accordingly dismissed. 10. The interim order of stay earlier granted on further proceedings of the MAC Case is stands vacated. JUDGE Comparing Assistant