Allahabad High Court
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Rahul & Others on 9 February, 2017
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2017 ALL 12
Author: Pankaj Mithal
Bench: Pankaj Mithal, Shashi Kant
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?AFR Court No. - 9 Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 2732 of 2009 Appellant :- United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Respondent :- Rahul & Others Counsel for Appellant :- Ajay Singh,S.K. Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- Anadi Krishna Narayana,Suresh Chandra Mishra Hon'ble Pankaj Mithal,J.
Hon'ble Shashi Kant,J.
An award of Rs.7,45,000/- was made on 14.01.2008 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal in favour of the claimants and the amount was directed to be payable by the owner of the vehicle.
Subsequently, on an application for review moved by the claimants, the Tribunal vide order dated 21.05.2009 shifted the liability to pay the compensation from the owner of the vehicle upon the appellant-Insurance Company.
Aggrieved by the aforesaid shifting of liability, the appellant-Insurance Company has preferred this appeal against the order dated 21.05.2009 passed by the Tribunal.
We have heard Sri Ajay Singh, learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company. Sri Sheetala Sahai has appeared for the claimants-respondents and Sri Anadi Krishan Narayana for the respondent no.8. No one has appeared for the respondents no.6 and 7 despite deemed service of notice upon them.
The contention of Sri Ajay Singh, learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company, is that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as an "Act") to review its decision, therefore, the order dated 20.05.2009 is a nullity.
There is virtually no response to the above argument from the side of any of the respondents.
The Act is a complete code in itself, which is both substantive and procedural in nature. It contains no provision authorizing the Tribunal to review its decision.
It is well settled that the appeal, revision or review are creation of the Statutes and that no person has inherent right to either prefer an appeal, revision or review against any order passed by any Authority, Court or Tribunal.
Thus, in the absence of any specific power being conferred upon the Tribunal to entertain a review application, it virtually has no jurisdiction to review any decision rendered by it, except for procedural review that too in a given facts and circumstances of the case.
The Tribunal has been recognized as a Civil Court for all purposes of Section 195 and Chapter 26 of Cr.P.C. Section 169 of the Act provides that the Tribunal shall have all the powers of the Civil Court for the purposes of taking the evidence on oath and for enforcing the attendance of witnesses and for compelling the discovery and production of documents and materiel objects and for such other purposes as may be prescribed.
The aforesaid provisions do not vest the power with regard to the appeal, revision or review upon the Tribunal.
Section 111 of the Act empowers the State Government to make Rules in respect of certain matters. In exercise of the said power, the State of U.P. has framed Uttar Pradesh Motor Vehicles Rules, 1988. The said Rules vide Rule 221 provides for the applicability of certain provision of the First Schedule of C.P.C. to the proceedings before the Tribunal but it does not apply the power of review as contained in the Code of Civil Procedure to the proceedings before Tribunal.
Thus, neither the Act nor the Rules framed under the Act as applicable in the State of U.P. provide that the Tribunals have the power to review its decision.
In New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Bimla Devi and others, 1999 Accident Claims Journal 613 Allahabad DB, it has been held that neither the Act nor the Rules framed under the Act contains any provision for review.
The Apex Court in Harbhajan Singh Vs. Karam Singh and others, AIR 1966 SC 641 clearly laid down that in absence of any power conferred by the Statute, review is not permissible.
In Abdul Majeed Vs. State of Kerala AIR 2005 (1) ANMAC 432 (Kerala), it has been held that as per the provisions of the Act, an appeal is provided against the award of the Tribunal but there is no provision for review either under the Act or the Rules and that provisions of CPC in this regard are also not applicable and as such the order of review passed by the Tribunal is without jurisdiction.
In view of the above discussion, we are also of the opinion that the Tribunal possesses no jurisdiction to review its decision and as such, the order dated 21.05.2009 passed by it is without jurisdiction and is a nullity.
Accordingly, we set aside the order dated 21.05.2009 and the review application, as filed by the claimants, stands rejected.
The appeal is allowed with no order as to costs.
Order Date :- 9.2.2017 Nadim