1. - This petition has been filed seeking to impugn the order date 18th April, 2011 passed by the Presiding Officer Special Court, Communal Riots/Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jaipur in MAC Case No. 25/09 (44/94) and further order dated 27th April, 2011 passed by the Presiding Officer Special Court, Communal Riots/Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jaipur on a review application filed against the Award dated 18th April, 2011.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record and the orders impugned.

3. Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter to be referred to as "the MV Act") provides for appeals at the instance of any person aggrieved by an award of the Claims Tribunal, on the terms and conditions set out in the said section.

4. A perusal of the MV Act does not indicate that the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal has the power to review its own order. Reference may be made to Section 169 of the MV Act which deals with the procedure and powers of the Claims Tribunal. A bare look at Section 169 of the MV Act shows that the Claims Tribunal has powers of a Civil Court only for the purposes of taking evidence on oath and of enforcing the attendance of witnesses and of compelling the discovery and production of documents and material objects and for such other purposes as may be prescribed and the Claims Tribunal is deemed to be a Civil Court for all the purposes of Section 195 and Chapter XXVI of the Code of Criminal Procedure. There is no power under Order 47, Rule 1 CPC vested in the Tribunal. The Tribunal is a creature of statute with limited jurisdiction and unless power of review is conferred on the Tribunal, the Tribunal cannot invoke the said powers. Thus, in my considered opinion, the review petition before the Claims Tribunal against the Judgment/Award dated 18.4.2011 was not maintainable. The review petition ought to have been dismissed on this ground alone.

5. It is trite that the power of review can be exercised by a judicial Court/authority only if such a power is specifically conferred by the Statute. Power of review is not an inherent power. As stated herein-above, power of review is not conferred on the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal under the MV Act. In this view of the matter, I am of the opinion that the order dated 27.4.2011 passed in purported review of the judgment/award dated 118.4.2011 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jaipur ought to be set aside for having been passed in excess of jurisdiction. Yet the award dated 18.4.2011 passed by the Claims Tribunal in Accident Case No. 25/09 (44/94) has to be sustained in this petition to be challenged, if advised, by way of an appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Counsel for the petitioner fairly admits that the award dated 18.4.2011 is appealable. Consequently, the challenge to the Award dated 18.4.2011 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jaipur is not maintainable in view of an alternative remedy.

6. It is however, made clear that this case is not being decided on merits of the Award dated 18.4.2011 and the petitioner would be free to avail his remedy under Section 173 of the MV Act.The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly.Writ petition disposed of as above.

*******