Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR
Javed Iqbal Wani, J.
Avtar Singh - Petitioner
Versus
United India Insurance and Others - Respondents
RPC No 09 To 15 of 2013
Decided On : 01-12-2021
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Section 166 - Jammu & Kashmir High Court Rules, 1999 - Rule 65 and 66 (4) - Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Order 47 CPC - Accident - Death - Validity of License - Compensation - Application for review of Judgment - Whether driver of offending vehicle was not holding valid driving license but was possessing a fake license on date of accident” and that Company proved said issue upon leading evidence proving that license in question had not been issued in name of deceased driver and thus, in this view of matter judgment passed by Jammu wing of this Court in appeals filed by Company had no relevance in so far as appeals filed by Company before this wing of this Court is concerned, which decided said appeals in terms of judgment under review - Respondents in objections controvert and resist contentions raised and ground surged in instant review petitions and seek dismissal of review petitions.
Finding of the court : Failure and omission on the part of the Company perse would constitute a sufficient reason as appearing in Order 47 CPC for review of judgment under review on this ground alone. Even otherwise as well record tends to show the petitioner herein did not produce or bring into notice of Srinagar Tribunal or this wing of Court the said fact determined by Jammu wing of this Court in view of his having being proceeded ex-parte resulting into passing of ex-parte award against him, as also on account of his contention believing bonafidely about the following of the findings by Jammu Tribunal qua his liability by Srinagar Tribunal as well and that said ground constitutes a ground for review of judgment under review - Power of review is not an inherent power. It must be conferred by law either specifically or by necessary implication. The review is also not an appeal in disguise. It cannot be denied that justice is a virtue which transcends all barriers and the rules or procedures or technicalities of law cannot stand in way of administration of justice - Perusal of the record indisputably tends to show that claim petitions filed at Jammu Tribunal and Srinagar Tribunal have had arisen from one and the same vehicular accident qua vehicle No. JK02P-5325 belonging to the petitioner involving one Insurance Company.
Result : Review petitions allowed
JUDGMENT :
1. This common order shall dispose of the instant review petitions filed against the judgment dated 05.11.2013 passed by this Court in Civil appeal Nos. 119/2012, 120/2012, 121/2012, 122/2012, 123/2012, 124/2012, 125/2012 and cross appeal No. 56/2013.
2. Before adverting to the grounds urged in the instant petitions, it would be appropriate to give a brief background of the case as stated in the petitions hereunder: -
(ii) It is being stated that claim petitions under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, (for short the Act) came to be filed before various Motor Accident Claim Tribunals (for short the Tribunal) out of which seven came to be filed at Jammu, seven at Srinagar, eight at Pulwama and one at Rajouri.
(iii) It is being further stated that out of the total claim petitions filed, first batch of claim petitions filed before Jammu Tribunal came to be decided by a common judgment/order on 26.02.2010 and second batch of petitions filed before Srinagar Tribunal also came to be decided by a common order/judgment on 25.11.2011.
(iv) It is being further stated that offending vehicle was insured with respondent No.1/Insurance Company (for short the Company)
(v) It is being next stated that Company filed appeals against the judgment/order passed by Jammu Tribunal before the Jammu wing of this Court being CIMA Nos. 718/2010, 556/2010, 557/2010, 558/2010, 653/2013, 559/2010, 560/2010 and 561/2010 and the said appeals are stated to have been decided by the Jammu wing of this Court vide judgment dated 01.11.2013.
(vi) It is being further stated that judgment/order passed by the Srinagar Tribunal in the claim petitions also came to be appealed against by the Company being CIMA Nos. 119/2012, 120/2012, 121/2012, 122/2012, 123/2012, 124/2012 and 125/2012 and the said appeals are stated to have been decided by Srinagar wing of this Court vide judgment dated 05.11.2013.
(vii) It is being next stated that the petitioner being owner of the offending vehicle had appeared before the Jammu Tribunal as a witness and successfully proved that the driver of the vehicle had got license validly renewed from the office of Regional Transport Officer, Jammu, who had verified the said fact and, as such, could not be saddled with the liability, though, the license otherwise had been issued by licensing authority, Shimla.
(viii) It is being further stated that in the claim petitions at Jammu, petitioner had maintained that the driver of the vehicle was holding a valid license and since had appeared as a witness before Jammu Tribunal and deposed that the license of the driver had been renewed validly by the competent authority, as such, the petitioner upon receiving advice did not appear in the claim petitions before the Srinagar Tribunal believing that Srinagar Tribunal could not arrive at different conclusions so far as the petitioner is concerned.
(ix) It is being next stated that when the appeals were considered by the Jammu wing of this Court it recorded an express finding that petitioner-owner could not be saddled with the liability as the material on record had established that the petitioner-owner had acted as a man of ordinary prudence and therefore, liability could not be passed on, from the insurance company to him and insurance company could not be granted liberty to recover amount compensation awarded to the claimants from the petitioner owner.
(x) It is being further stated that the appeals preferred by the Company before Srinagar wing of the Court against the judgments/orders passed by Srinagar Tribunal came to be decided on 01.11.2013 after the decision of the appeals passed by the
Point of Law : Power of review can also be exercised by Court in event discovery of new and important matter or evidence takes place which despite exercise of due diligence was not within knowledge o....
The power of review is strictly limited to specific grounds, and a mere disagreement with the previous judgment does not constitute a valid basis for review.
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.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the obligation of the owner and driver to produce a valid and effective driving license, the authority of the Tribunal to entertain review applicat....
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 court established that review petitions cannot substitute the procedural remedies available under the Code of Civil Procedure in motor accident claims.
The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal lacks inherent power of review without legislative authority; such power can only correct clerical errors, not substitute judgments.
A review petition under Section 114 read with Order XLVII of the CPC is not an appeal in disguise; it is limited to correcting errors apparent on the face of the record and cannot be used to re-argue....
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
