AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
K.S. Jhaveri, J.—This appeal has been preferred against the order dated 15.09.2004 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Main), Kheda at Nadiad in M.A.C.P. (Misc.) No. 41/2000 whereby, the said application for review of the judgment and award of the Tribunal came to be allowed.
The facts in brief are that Respondent Nos. 1 to 5 herein, original claimants, had filed M.A.C.P. No. 1439/1989 before the Tribunal claiming compensation of Rs. 2.00 Lacs. The claim petition came to be partly allowed by judgment and award dated 16.02.2000 whereby, the claimants were held to be entitled to receive Rs. 1,37,900/- as compensation.
Pursuant to the passing of the aforesaid award, the claimants moved M.A.C.P. (Misc.) No. 41/2000 inter alia stating that the deceased was not the driver of the motor-car or tanker but was travelling as a passenger only and no contributory negligence could be attributed upon him. It was, therefore, submitted that the award dated 16.02.2000 is required to be modified accordingly.
After hearing both the sides, the Tribunal allowed the review application and awarded Rs. 1,97,000/- by way of compensation along with interest. Being aggrieved by the same, the Appellant has preferred the present appeal.
Heard learned Counsel for the respective parties and perused the documents on record. By allowing the M.A.C.P. (Misc.) No. 41/2000, the Tribunal has not attributed any degree of negligence upon the deceased in the accident. It other words, the negligence of 30% that was attributed upon the deceased while passing the main judgment and award was set aside and it was held that the driver of the offending vehicle was solely negligent for the accident. Thus, no degree of contributory negligence was attributed on the deceased by passing the impugned order. Indisputably, the passing of the impugned order touches the merits of the case. In my opinion, a modification / clarification that touches the merits of the case, cannot be permitted.
Considering the facts of the case, it would be relevant to refer to a decision of the Apex Court in the case of Ram Chandra Singh Vs. Savitri Devi and Others, In that case, it has been held that a clarification in a judgment, which touches the merits of the matter, is not maintainable and that contentions that were not raised at the stage of hearing cannot be permitted to be raised in an application seeking clarification of judgment.
In view of the principle laid down in Ram Chandra Singh''s case (supra), this Court is of the opinion that the Tribunal below has seriously erred in allowing the misc. application preferred by the original claimants since the same was against the settled provisions of law. Hence, the impugned order passed by the Tribunal deserves to be quashed and set aside.
For the foregoing reasons, the appeal is allowed. The impugned order dated 15.09.2004 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Main), Kheda at Nadiad in M.A.C.P. (Misc.) No. 41/2000 is quashed and set aside. The original judgment and award dated 16.02.2000 passed by the Tribunal granting compensation of Rs. 1,37,900/- with proportionate costs and interest stands confirmed. The amount deposited by the Appellant-Insurance Company shall be refunded to it forthwith. The appeal stands disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs.