The Supreme Court recently took issue with a lawyer bringing his paralyzed and wheelchair-bound client to court despite the fact that the Court had not mandated such personal presence of the litigant in question.
A bench of Justice Dinesh Maheshwari and Justice PV Sanjay Kumar made the remarked while dealing with compensation and liabilities owed by an insurance company (Iffco Tokio General Insurance Co Ltd).
While issuing notice in November 2019, the Court stayed the enhanced compensation involved.
In their appearance on behalf of the petitioners, Advocate Manish Kumar and Advocate Gopal Singh stated that an amount of 57 lakh had already been paid against the claim of the first respondent (claimant).
Appearing for the respondent, Rahul Kumar (and anr) Advocate Navneet Goyal, Advocate Manjeet Chawla and Advocate Usha Pant Kukreti then stated that it felt the respondent’s presence was being used to ‘seek undue sympathy’.
The bench was appalled, claiming that the respondent’s presence was being used to “seek undue sympathy.”
The bench then stated that the case could have been heard solely on the basis of counsel’s submissions.
“Learned counsel for the respondent no.1 has submitted that the said respondent, said to be paralyzed, is before the Court to attend the hearing. We are at loss to find any reason that the said claimant-respondent has been advised to attend the hearing in this Court, particularly when he is said to be otherwise not in a proper physical condition. This Court has never asked or expected him to appear for the purpose of hearing“, the order stated.
While releasing the case from its board, the bench directed that it be re-assigned to the Chief Justice of India.
