Back
2019 Supreme(Bom) 1238
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD
RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.
Meena W/o Popat Mhaske – Petitioner
Versus
The Manager, Bajaj Alliainz General Insurance Co. Ltd. – Respondent
Writ Petition No. 7589 of 2019
Decided On : 03-08-2019
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioners: Shri Manoj D. Shinde, Ms. Savita P. Kakade.
For the Respondents: Shri S.G. Chapalgaonkar, Shri V.P. Kadam.
Headnote:
Civil Procedure Code,1908 - Sections 30, 32, 34, 35, 35(a), 75(a) and (c), 76, 77, (89), 94, 95, 132, 133, 134, 145, 147, 148, 149, 151, 152 and 153 - Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Section 166,169 and 176 - Maharashtra Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 – Rule 275 and 276 - Motor vehicular accident – Claim compensation - Petitioners are original respondent Nos. 1 and 2 in the Motor Accident Claim Petition - This case brings up a peculiar issue as regards a mistake in judgment of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal - Mistake that has occurred is such which would seldom appear as a mistake in any proceeding - Compensation claimants, who are respondent, had approached Tribunal under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 seeking compensation - They claimed to be the legal heirs of the deceased, who died in a motor vehicle accident - Petitioner No. 2 was driving a four wheeled vehicle which crashed on to moped vehicle of deceased – Said one passed away while under treatment in a Super Specialty Hospital - He was working with an industry by name Steel Furniture Works - Claim was allowed - Original respondent No. 3 had initially examined one, who was in RTO, Beed - He had specifically deposed that he was an employee posted at Beed RTO as a Junior Clerk - He had brought original file pertaining to driving license of said one petitioner - He mentioned license number of vehicle, date of issuance and the category as “heavy goods (HMV) - Insurance company alleged that, said one was not having a valid and effective driving license as per the record - There was no entry in the office file that said one had renewed the driving license - This portion is set out of the judgment – Held, court do not find that High Court or the Chhattisgarh High Court had noticed that Section 114 and Order XLVII were specifically not made applicable to Tribunal - It would indicate that legislature did not intend that Tribunal should have power to review its own judgment or orders - It is possible that the legislature had in mind that claimants, who litigate for compensation on account of the injuries caused to a family member or the loss of a family member, which would take away a bread earner, would then be tired out in litigation by permitting a litigant to seek a review - Rigors of litigation being suffered by claimants would thus be increased and it would take years for them to receive compensation amount - Court find that Sections 151 to 153 would not permit Court to amend its own order/judgment or cure any defect which would affect the merits of the case - In view of the above, as there is a specific absence of a statutory provision providing for a review and since the power of review under Section 114 and Order XLVII have been excluded under Rules 275 and 276 defining the procedure and powers of Tribunal, a Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal cannot review its judgment on its merits - In view of the above, court do not find that Tribunal has committed any error in passing impugned order declining request of the petitioner to correct error - Petition dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by the consent of the parties.
2. The petitioners are the original respondent Nos. 1 and 2 in the Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 96/2012. They are aggrieved by the order dated 08.02.2019, delivered by the Tribunal, by which, MACP Misc. Application No. 02/2019, has been rejected and the Tribunal has refused to correct a mistake that has occurred in the judgment dated 28.11.2018, by which, the claim petition was allowed and the entire liability of paying the compensation was foisted on these petitioners.
3. This case brings up a peculiar issue as regards a mistake in the judgment of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. The mistake that has occurred is such which would seldom appear as a mistake in any proceeding.
4. The compensation claimants, who are respondent Nos. 2 to 7 herein, had approached the Tribunal under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 seeking compensation of Rs. 23,36,000/-. They claimed to be the legal heirs of the deceased Baban Natha Dhule, who died in a motor vehicle accident that took place on 09.10.2011 at about 6.00 p.m. near the FDC Company, MIDC Waluj, Aurangabad. Petitioner No. 2 was driving a four wheeled vehicle which crashed on to the moped vehicle of the deceased Baban. Baban passed away on 30.11.2011 while under treatment in a Super Specialty Hospital at Aurangabad. He was working with an industry by name M/s. Pawan Steel Furniture Works at Ranjangaon, Aurangabad and his monthly earnings were said to be Rs. 18,000/-. The claim was allowed on 28.11.2018.
5. The original respondent No. 3 had initially examined one Shri Namdeo Tukaram Wagh, who was in RTO, Beed. He had specifically deposed that he was an employee posted at Beed RTO as a Junior Clerk. He had brought the original file pertaining to the driving license of Narayan Babasaheb Dhande, petitioner No. 2 herein. He mentioned the license number of the vehicle, date of issuance as 04.12.1998 and the category as “heavy goods (HMV).” It was valid from 04.12.1998 to 01.12.2011. The insurance company alleged that, on 09.10.2011, Narayan was not having a valid and effective driving license as per the record. There was no entry in the office file that Narayan had renewed the driving license on 01.02.2011 atleast from 01.02.2011 to 21.12.2012. This portion is set out in paragraph 21 of the judgment.
6. In paragraph 22, the Tribunal concluded that the petitioners had examined Prashant Umraosingh Shinde from RTO office, Aurangabad. It is further recorded that Prashant Shinde deposed that the license was valid from 17.03.2011 up to 16.03.2014 as per the record. The receipt number for depositing renewal license fees was also mentioned. However, in the same paragraph, the Tribunal concluded that since Prashant Shinde was working in the RTO at Aurangabad and the matter pertains to Beed, his evidence cannot be believed and has to be discarded. The mistake that has occurred is that Prashant Shinde was not an officer from RTO, Aurangabad, but was actually an officer from RTO, Beed who used to reside at Aurangabad and used to travel daily to reach his office to Beed.
7. I am not required to go into the analysis of the Claims Tribunal in paragraph Nos. 21 and 22 since I am not dealing with the merits of the said judgment. I am dealing with an issue raised by the petitioners that the deposition of Prashant Shinde was discarded by the Tribunal under a mistaken belief that he was working in RTO, Aurangabad and had nothing to do with RTO, Beed. Contention of the petitioners is that if the testimony of Prashant Shinde is considered, as he indeed was working in RTO, Beed, the entire result of the proceedings would be altered and the petitioners would not be liable to pay compensation amount since the entire liability would then shift on to the Insurance Company.
8. It is in the above backdrop that these petitioners preferred MACP MA No. 02/2019 invoking Section 169 of the Maharas
