The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal lacks inherent power of review without legislative authority; such power can only correct clerical errors, not substitute judgments.

JUDGMENT :

PARTHIVJYOTI SAIKIA, J.

Heard Mrs. R.D. Mozumdar, the learned counsel representing the appellant Insurance Company as well as Mr. R. Goswami, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

2. This is an appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the judgment dated 16.02.2017 passed by the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Cachar, Silchar in MAC Case No.1490/2010.

3. On 01.08.2010, the deceased Taj Uddin, aged about 30 years and was earning Rs.5,000/- per month, going towards his house on foot. At about 9 P.M., when he reached N.R.E.P. Road, a Hero Honda Motorcycle bearing Registration No.AS-11-E-2365 knocked Taj Uddin from behind. He sustained serious injuries. He was immediately shifted to Silchar medical College & Hospital. On 21.08.2010, Taj Uddin succumbed injuries in the hospital.

4. A claim application was filed before the Tribunal seeking compensation.

5. The aforesaid motorcycle was driven by Machunglong Rongmei. In his written statement, he claimed to have a valid driving licence and a valid insurance policy.

6. The Insurance Company contested the claim petition by filing a written statement. The only material plea take by the Insurance Company is that the claimant had claimed an exhorbitant amount of compensation.

7. At the time of hearing, the claimants examined the claimant Musstt. Rusna Begum Laskar only. She exhibited some documents also. Exhibit-2 is the FIR and Exhibit-3 is the Medical Certificate of cause of death issued by Silchar Medical College and Hospital, Silchar. In Ext.3 it was mentioned that the deceased Taj Uddin died because of septicemia following infections of the wounds sustained during his lifetime.

8. The Tribunal held that the death of the deceased cannot be connected to the accident where he sustained injuries. Therefore, by a formal judgment on 06.11.2013, the Tribunal dismissed the claim petition.

9. Thereafter, the claimants filed a review petition being Misc. Case No.61/2013 before the Tribunal praying for reviewing the said judgment. The Tribunal, after hearing both sides, on 21.06.2014, allowed the review petition and set aside the judgment dated 06.11.2013 and directed the parties to exhibit some more documents and also directed the claimants to adduce further evidence in order to exhibit those documents.

10. Thereafter, the Tribunal framed the following issues:

1. Whether the deceased met motor accident on 01.08.2010 and the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the motorcycle bearing Registration No.AS-11-E-2365?

2. Whether the deceased sustained injury and died due to motor accident?

3. Whether the claimants are entitled to compensation? If so, what amount is just and reasonable?

4. To what other relief/reliefs the claimants are entitled?

11. During the hearing, the claimants, examined witnesses. The driver of the motorcycle as well as the Insurance Company did not examine any witnesses.

12. On the basis of the evidence on record, the Tribunal allowed the prayer of the claimants and awarded a compensation of Rs.16,60,237/-. The Insurance Company was directed to pay the said amount.

13. On being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment, the present appeal has been filed.

14. The appellant Insurance Company claimed that the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to review its own order. Ms. Mozumdar has submitted that the claimant should have filed an appeal against the judgment dated 06.11.2013.

15. Ms. Mozumdar has submitted that power of review is not an inherent power of the Tribunal. The learned counsel has submitted that Motor Vehicles Act does not confer the power of review. Ms. Mozumdar has relied upon the ju