Parashram Mahadev Divate vs United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and Others

K. Sreedhar Rao, J.—Petitioner in M.V.C. No. 935/1990 is awarded compensation by the Tribunal. It is further directed by the Tribunal that the owner and insurer are liable to pay the compensation.

Petitioner was a passenger in the goods tempo. An application u/s 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act was filed seeking interim compensation. The Tribunal directed payment of interim compensation to the petitioner by the insurer of the tempo.

This Court in M.F.A. No. 1670/1997 against the award of maximum compensation observed that as per the petition averments, the petitioner was travelling in the tempo after attending a marriage and, hence, he was an unauthorised passenger, and held that the insurer is not liable to pay compensation u/s 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act to the injuries sustained by the unauthorised passenger in view of the ruling of this Court in Smt. Mallawwa Etc. Vs. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. and Others, .

After recording the evidence, the Tribunal passed an award directing the owner and insurer to pay the compensation. It appears that the Order of this Court in M.F.A No. 1670/1997 was not brought to the notice of the Tribunal, at the time of passing the final order.

A petition was made to the Tribunal for review on the ground that in a view of the Order passed in M.F.A. No. 1670/1997, the award against the insurer is bad in law and the same is to be recalled. The Tribunal allowed the review petition and dismissed the claim petition against the insurer. The petitioner is in appeal on the ground that the review petition is not maintainable and the Order of dismissal of the claim against the insurer in review is without jurisdiction.

The Madras High Court in Anantharaju Sltetty v. Appu Hegade AIR 1919 Mad. 244, has held that the District Judge as the Tribunal under the Religious Endowments Act has no power of review of his own decision passed u/s 10 of the Religious Endowments Act. In that view, the argument that the review petition filed by the insurer is bad in law and the entire further proceedings are void ab initio.

The denial of the power of review to the Judicial Authority in the absence of specific investment under statute is for a sound reason that the Court when once passes the Order it becomes functus officio and has no jurisdiction to review the Order. The Civil Courts, however, u/s 141 of CPC have the power of review. The Motor Vehicles Act and Rules do not confer the powers of review on the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal.

The Counsel for the respondents relied on the ruling of the Supreme Court in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Rajendra Singh and Others, . In para 15 it is held thus:

Since fraud affects the solemnity, regularity and orderliness of the proceedings of the Court and also amounts to an abuse of the process of Court, the Courts have been held to have inherent power to set aside an order obtained by fraud practised upon that Court. Similarly, where the Court is misled by a party or the Court itself commits a mistake which prejudices a party, the Court has the inherent power to recall its order.

The facts of the case squarely fall within the third exception namely "the Court itself does a mistake". It is explicit that this Court while disposing of M.F.A. No. 1670/1997 has categorically on the basis of the facts pleaded in the petition came to the conclusion that the petitioner was an unauthorised passenger and, hence, the insurer does not incur any liability. The contention that the petitioner has let in evidence to show that he was travelling along with the goods is untenable and any evidence de hors pleading is inadmissible. This Court had held that the insurer is not liable to pay the compensation. The said finding has become conclusive, therefore, the question of reconsidering the liability of insurer again at the time of final disposal will not arise. The Tribunal had missed to take note of the earlier Order passed by this Court in M.F.A. No. 1670/1997, thus erroneously passed the Order fastening liability on the insurer. In view of the ruling of the Supreme Court in Rajendra Singh''s case, the Tribunal/ Court has inherent jurisdiction to recall its own Order when obviously made under a mistake. Hence, the second Order passed by the Tribunal dismissing the claim against the insurer is sound and proper.

Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.