The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal has the power to review its own order to rectify any illegality and to meet the ends of justice. The duty of the insurance company to produce a copy of the insurance policy to substantiate the contention with regard to the limit of their liability was also emphasized.

Mohamed Shafi, J.

The award dated 24.7.1987 and the order dated 25.2.1988 in I. A. No. 592/87 in OP (MV) No. 516/82 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Trivandrum are challenged by the claimant in this appeal. The claimant-appellant claimed a total compensation of Rs. 1,25,000/- for the personal injuries sustained by him alleging that while he was riding his bicycle from west to east through the Trivandrum-Kattakada road on 9.3.1981 the taxi bearing No. KLV 2991 owned by the 1st respondent and driven by the 3rd respondent in a rash and negligent manner from the opposite direction hit against his bicycle, knocked him down and caused serious injuries.

2. The Tribunal after enquiry, by the award dated 24.7.1987 allowed a compensation of Rs. 81,800/- with interest at 9% per annum from 29.7.1982 against respondents 1 and 3 and directed the 2nd respondent insurer to pay the amount within two months from the date of award and allowed interest at 12% per annum beyond the period of two months, disallowing the contention raised by the 2nd respondent with regard to limitation of their liability.

3. Subsequently, the 2nd respondent-insurance company filed IA No. 592/87 before the Tribunal seeking review of the award dated 24.7.1987, limiting their liability to the statutory limit of Rs. 50,000/-. Though the claimant appellant herein raised various contentions against the review of the award, the learned Tribunal repelling those contentions reviewed the award limiting the liability of the insurer to Rs. 50,000/- and directing the appellant to realise the balance amount from the owner and driver of the offending car.

4. The claimant has come up in appeal dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation and review of the original award by the Tribunal.

5. Even though several contentions are raised by the appellant against the adequacy of the quantum of compensation in the memorandum of appeal, when the appeal came up for hearing the counsel for the appellant has not addressed any argument against the inadequacy of the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

6. On a careful consideration of the nature of the injuries sustained by the appellant and the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, we feel that the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is fair and adequate and no interference regarding the quantum of compensation is warranted in this appeal.

7. The main thrust of the contention of the appellant is against the order passed by the Tribunal reviewing the award and limiting the liability of the 2nd respondent-insurance company to Rs. 50,000/-. Over and above raising various contentions against the competency of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal to review its own order and the legality and jurisdiction of the impugned order, the counsel for the appellant strenuously submitted that in case the liability of the insurer is limited and the appellant is directed to proceed against respondents 1 and 3, the owner and driver of the vehicle for realisation of the balance amount exceeding Rs. 50,000/-, the appellant will not be able to realise the amount from the owner and the driver and the award passed by the Tribunal in favour of the appellant to that extent will be of no benefit.

8. The counsel for thee appellant vehemently argued that the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal not being a civil Court, has no power or authority to review its own order. According to him, as per R.21 of the Motor Vehicles Rules, only certain provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure are made applicable to the proceedings before the Tribunal and the power to review the order under CPC is not mentioned in that rule and therefore, the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal has no power to review its own order. He also argued that since the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal has no inherent power to review its own order unless and until the power of review is conferred upon the Tribunal either expressly or impliedly, the Tribunal has no juris