IMPORTANT POINT
The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal lacks the power to review its orders, and the vehicle involved in the accident was deemed fit under applicable rules.

JUDGMENT :

1. Whether the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal can exercise the power of review once the claim petition under Section 168 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is ordered? The owner of the vehicle involved in the accident has come up before this Court in appeal raising this seminal question of law.

2. The facts for disposal of this appeal are as follows:

On 04.05.2017 at 12.05 p.m. one Mr. Bakkar, husband of the first claimant and father of claimants 2 to 5, was hit down by a Tata Ace Dicor bearing registration No. KL-7/CD-2149 which came through the Muvattupuzha - Pezhakkappilly M.C. Road. The victim was taken to Sabine Hospital, Pezhakkappilly and then referred to MOSC Medical College Hospital, Kolenchery. The Insurance Company filed a written statement, inter alia, contending that the deceased has crossed the road negligently and the accident was caused due to the negligence of the deceased. However, the policy was admitted but liability was denied. It was further contended that the vehicle was used without a Certificate of Fitness, which amounts to violation of the policy and therefore, if at all the claimants are found to be entitled to compensation, the Insurance Company has to be given the benefit of recovery from the owner. On behalf of the claimants, Exts.A1 to A14 were produced. Originally, the Insurance Company produced only the policy. Based on pleadings and evidence on record, the Tribunal framed the following issues:

“1. Whether the accident is the result of rash and negligent driving by the 2nd respondent?

2. Whether the petitioners are entitled to any compensation from the respondents? If so, what is the quantum?

3. Relief and costs.”

3. On 16.09.2019, the Tribunal allowed the claim and granted the compensation without reserving the right of the Insurance Company to recover the amount from the appellant. Aggrieved by the same, the Insurance Company filed an application, I.A. No. 2771 of 2019 purportedly under Section 114 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The Tribunal vide order dated 25.01.2020 recalled the award. Pertinently, the Insurance Company had produced Exts.B2 and B3 which were the information solicited from the transport authorities under the provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005 along with the said application. With the additional materials on record, the Tribunal proceeded to consider the claim afresh and by the impugned award, the Tribunal concluded that since there was no Certificate of fitness on the date of the accident, the Insurance Company was entitled to an order of recovery from the owner. The said award is impugned in the appeal.

4. Heard Sri. P.M. Mohammad Shiraz, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, and Sri. V.P.K. Panicker, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Insurance Company.

5. Sri. P.M. Mohammed Shiraz, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant raised the following two contentions:

(i) The Tribunal could not have exercised the power of review and reviewed the earlier award dated 16.09.2019. The Tribunal ought to have noticed that an application for review, which was filed under Section 114 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, was not maintainable. The Tribunal, a creature of statute, namely the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, has neither an inherent power to recall its order nor the power of review conferred on it under the statute.

(ii) In terms of Rule 62 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, a newly registered vehicle is deemed to be fit for two (2) years. Therefore, in the light of the statutory protection given under Rule 62 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules for a newly registered vehicle, no separate Fitness Certificate is required and therefore, the award of the Tribunal is unsustainable.

6. On the other hand, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Insurance Company, Sri. V.P.K. Panicker, submitted that the Tribunal has inherent power to recall its order in terms of the provisions contained under Se