The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal has the power to review its order on limited grounds, such as patent illegality or error of law.

( 1 ) PRESENT appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, (in short the Act) has its genesis in the order dated 24. 12. 1993 passed by Mr. Chandrama Singh, 14th Additional District judge, Moradabad, while acting as a Judge, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Moradabad, whereby the learned Judge allowed the application seeking review of the award dated 3. 7. 1993 at the behest of the claimants, thereby providing for Rs. 16,000/- more to each of the claimant Nos. 1,2 and 3 towards compensation already awarded to the claimants. The grounds in consideration of which the review application has climaxed into success, are that the Tribunal in its award dated 3. 7. 1993 had subtracted a sum of Rs. 48,000/- by way of deductions owing to lump sum payment of the compensation.

( 2 ) IT is beyond the pale of controversy that the Tribunal had initially worked out a sum of Rs. 2,40,000/- as compensation payable to the claimants out of which a sum of Rs. 48,000/-, approximating to 20 per cent of the amount of compensation, was directed to be slashed on the count of lump sum payment of the compensation. After off-setting the said amount to the tune of rs. 48,000/-, the award of the Tribunal stood reduced to a round figure of Rs. 1,90,000/- by way of compensation. The review application came to be filed by the claimants on the ground that the deductions made on the count of lump sum payment were illegally allowed, in contrariety of the law laid down by the Supreme Court.

( 3 ) THE only question, cynosure of attention in the instant case, as urged by the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant insurance company, is that the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, being not a civil court, is divested of any inherent power to review its order. The learned Counsel urged that according to Section 169 (2) of the Act, the Claims Tribunal is invested with all the powers of a civil court only for the purposes specified in the section, i. e. , 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, besides the purposes specified in rule 21 of the U. P. Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal Rules, 1967 and since, proceeded the submission, the specified purposes did not include the power of a civil court to review its order, the Claims Tribunal is sans the power of the civil court for review either under Order 47 or section 151, Civil Procedure Code. On the other hand, the learned Counsel appealing for the respondents emphatically canvassed that the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal has all the trappings of a civil court and that being so, it will entail all the powers including the power of review as inherent in the civil courts.

( 4 ) IN the case of Om Prakash v. Rukmini Devi 1983 ACJ 300 (Allahabad), decided by a Division bench of this Court, it was held that Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal is not a court inasmuch as it is a creation of special statute and it does not enjoy the status of civil courts. Its orders were accordingly held not amenable to appeal under Order 43 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

( 5 ) IN Suraj Bhan Goel v. Dhapo Devi 1969 ACJ 192 (Delhi), Delhi High Court has held that claims Tribunal has no power to review its order and further that it cannot invoke inherent powers under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The learned Counsel for the appellant also placed reliance on a decision of this Court in Sardar Singh v. U. P. State Road Transport corporation 1992 ACJ 463 (Allahabad), wherein it has been held, relying upon the Division bench decision in Om Prakash v. Rukmini Devi 1983 ACJ 300 (Allahabad), that in proceedings before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, the entire provisions of the Code of Civil procedure would not apply. Rather, only those provisions would apply as are mentioned in Rule 21 of the U. P. Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal Rules, 1967.

( 6 ) IN my considered view, it would be