IMPORTANT POINT
The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 does not empower the Claims Tribunal to review its own awards, and the powers of a Civil Court conferred on the Tribunal do not extend to reviewing decisions.

ORDER :

Nupur Bhati, J.

1. The present appeal has been filed by the appellant/insurance company under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (‘MV Act’) assailing the validity of the judgment and award dated 16.09.1999 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Udaipur (‘Tribunal’)in Claim Petition Nos. 493/90 and 494/90, whereby the learned Tribunal had reviewed its own order and awarded compensation in favour of the respondent/non-claimants to the tune of Rs. 1,42,200/- each along with interest @ 8% per annum and an additional claim of Rupees 1,17,000 was passed in review petition to be paid within 2 months from the date of the award failing which the claimants will be entitled to get 12% interest per year till the payment of the award is made.

2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that claim petition nos. 493/90 and 494/90 were filed by claimant-respondent Durga Bai(mother of the deceased, Nathu Singh) and others and Jamna Bai (wife of the deceased, Mangidas) and others respectively, before the learned Tribunal, Udaipur in respect of the accident that took place on 23.05.1990 in which a bus no. RJS 7253 collided with a truck and Durga Devi’s Son Nathu Singh along with Jamna Bai’s husband died while travelling in the aforementioned bus. The learned Tribunal Udaipur decided aforementioned claim petition along with many other claim petitions vide order dated 08.02.1999 and the claimant was paid no fault claim of Rupees 25,000 along with interest.

3. Thereafter, the claimant filed a review petition under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC before the learned Tribunal Udaipur in Claim Petition No. 493/90 and claimed additional compensation in addition to the no fault claim of Rupees 25,000 that was paid in the claim petition No. 493/90. In the review petition learned Tribunal issued notice to the United Insurance Company and the United Insurance Company submitted objections to the review petition on 14.09.1999 alleging therein that the review petition under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC is not maintainable for review of the order dated 08.02.1999 by which claim petition is finally adjudicated and the claimant cannot get more than 25000 rupees that was awarded as no fault claim. Thereafter the matter was placed for arguments on 15.09.1999 and the award of Rupees 1,42,000 was passed in favour of the claimant on 16.09.1999 and an additional claim of Rupees 1,17,000 was passed in review petition to be paid within 2 months from the date of the award failing which the claimants will be entitled to get 12% interest per year till the payment of the award is made. Thus the appellant being aggrieved of the judgment and award dated 16.09.1999, filed the present appeal.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that review petition filed by the claimant is not maintainable under the Motor Vehicles Act as it is a special Act and does not contain any provision for review of a decision or award passed by the Claims Tribunal and the provisions of CPC are not applicable to the award passed by the Claims Tribunal under Motor Vehicles Act and thus review is not maintainable under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC in an award passed under Motor Vehicles Act and such review petition is without jurisdiction and the Claims Tribunal becomes functus officio after it had passed the award.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that review cannot be filed as there is no provision specifically mentioned for the same in the statute and the learned Tribunal has committed an error in allowing the review of the claimants. He further submitted that the first award operates as res judicata and thus second award cannot be passed or adjudicated on the same facts and law. He also submitted that the claimant failed to produce any evidence or witness in support of the claim and thus the claimant could not be awarded additional compensation.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that there were a total of 18 claims which were decided by the learned Trib