Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
REKHA BORANA, J.
Abhilash S/o Narendra Singh – Appellant
Versus
The New India Insurance Company Ltd. – Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11683 of 2017
Decided on : 18-09-2024
Fraud - Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal - Section 169, Motor Vehicles Act; Order 47 Rule 1, CPC - The court held that a Tribunal lacks jurisdiction to review its own order under CPC unless fraud is established, which can nullify the award.
Fact of the Case:
The writ petition challenged a review order by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal that set aside a previous award due to allegations of fraud regarding a forged insurance policy.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Tribunal acted within its jurisdiction to review the award based on proven fraud, despite the general lack of power to review its own orders.
Issues: Whether a Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal can review its own order and whether fraud can justify such a review.
Ratio Decidendi: The Tribunal generally lacks jurisdiction to review its own orders under CPC, but can do so if fraud is established, as fraud vitiates all proceedings.
Result: The writ petition is dismissed.
ORDER :
1. The present writ petition has been preferred against the order dated 13.07.2017 (Annex.6) passed by Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Pali in Civil Misc. Case No.01/2017 whereby the review application as preferred by respondent-Insurance Company had been allowed. Vide the said order dated 13.07.2017, the learned Tribunal proceeded on to set aside the judgment and award dated 28.01.2017 passed in favour of the claimants and directed the matter to be heard and decided afresh.
2. The facts are that in Claim Petition No.225/2015 as preferred by the claimants qua the alleged accident of 22.06.2012, the learned Tribunal proceeded on to pass award dated 28.01.2017 for an amount of Rs.20,65,900/- in favour of the claimants with interest @9% per annum. Vide the said award, the driver, owner and the Insurance Company were held severally and jointly liable to pay the compensation to the claimants.
3. However, after two months of passing of the said award dated 28.01.2017, a review application under Order 47 Rule 1 read with Section 114, CPC was preferred on behalf of the Insurance Company with a submission that the insurance policy as relied upon by the claimants and on basis of which the award was passed in their favour, was a forged document and the award in question was obtained by playing a fraud upon the learned Tribunal. It was alleged that the said insurance policy was forged on the number of a policy actually issued in favour of one Shrawan Kumar. The actual policy was placed on record alongwith the said review application.
4. The learned Tribunal, after hearing the parties and considering the material available on record, observed that prima facie it was proved on record that the policy in question was a forged one. While relying upon the judgments passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the cases of United India Insurance Company & Ors. Vs. Rajendra Singh & Ors.; AIR 2000 SC 1165 and A.V. Papayya Sastry and Ors. Vs. Government of A.P. and Ors.; AIR 2007 SC 1546, the learned Tribunal overruled the objection as raised by the claimants regarding maintainability of the review petition and observed that in cases of fraud, the Tribunal was very well within its jurisdiction to set aside the award. Consequently, vide order dated 13.07.2017, it proceeded on to quash the award dated 28.01.2017 and directed the matter to be heard afresh.
5. Aggrieved of the order dated 13.07.2017, the present writ petition has been preferred.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it is the settled position of law that a Tribunal does not have power to review its own order and hence, the order impugned being totally in excess of jurisdiction, deserves to be quashed and set aside.
In support of his submissions, learned counsel relied upon the judgments of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the cases of Smt. Imiya Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors.; (2009) 1 DNJ 52 and Hanuman Sahai Vs. Judge, Special Court (Communal Riots)/MACT, Jaipur; (2012) WLC 145.
7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-Insurance company, while supporting the order impugned, submitted that it was a clear case of a fraud been played upon the Court/Tribunal and hence, the learned Tribunal rightly quashed the award in question.
8. Heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the material available on record.
9. Two issues which arise before this Court are:
Firstly, whether a Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, while exercising its powers under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 can review its own order?
Secondly, whether in cases where it is proved on record that a decree/award has been obtained by playing fraud upon the Court/Tribunal, the Court/Tribunal can review its order even in absence of any specific provision of law empowering it to do so?
10. So far as the first issue is concerned, reply to the same has clearly been spelt out in the case of Smt. Imiya (supra) wherein the Court held as under:
A Tribunal may review its order if fraud is proven, despite lacking general jurisdiction to do so under CPC.
The Claims Tribunal lacks inherent power to review awards on merits unless expressly provided by statute.
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.
A review petition under the Motor Vehicles Act is barred by limitation if not filed within the statutory period, and must demonstrate new evidence or error apparent on record to be entertained.
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.
The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal lacks inherent power of review without legislative authority; such power can only correct clerical errors, not substitute judgments.
Review allowed due to oversight of MACT's prior disposal of applications in motor accident claim proceedings.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
