It has been held by the Delhi High Court that, law of review is not founded on sympathy but on sound statutory mandate and long settled judicial dicta. This was found in a plea seeking review of an order passed by the Court in an accident claim. The Petitioner met with an accident and in furtherance of that he sought compensation under the Employees’ Compensation Act, 1923 from his employer, the owner of the vehicle for permanent disability of 50 % resulting in 100 % loss of earning capacity.
The appeal was allowed by the Court on the ground that the claim had been allowed in the absence of bare minimum evidence on proof of employment, proof of the accident or any FIR, medical report of injured persons, names of other drivers and other details of employment.It was contended that the petitioner was an illiterate person and he did not understand the finer details of the vehicle number when it was first given by him to the police.The Court observed that the petition was not based on a denial of natural justice or that in the judgment. Further the Court stated that the degree of sympathy that would warrant review of a decision can never be fixed therefore a nebulous criterion, depending on the nature and degree of feelings that a case may arouse in the adjudicating authority, cannot be the basis for grant of review. Lastly, the courts would have a companionate disposition in the dispensation of justice, restraint and caution would need to be exercised to ensure that compassion does not lapse into sympathy.