Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Gupta, J.—The petitioner has challenged an order dated 18.5.2015 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, whereby the application filed by the petitioner for review of the award dated 6.12.2010 passed in Claim Petition No. 24 of 2009, has been rejected. It has been held that there is no clerical error in the award and there being no power with the Tribunal to review its award on merits, the application cannot be accepted.

2. The core question for consideration is regarding the nature and scope of the power of review of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal constituted under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (Act).

3. The facts in brief are that the first to seventh respondents filed a claim petition claiming compensation on account of death of Virendra Bahadur Singh Chauhan in a motor accident. The petitioner is the owner of the offending vehicle with which accident occurred and the eighth respondent is the Insurance Company with which the vehicle was insured. By an award dated 6.12.2010, an amount of Rs. 8,48,482/- was awarded as compensation to the claimants. Although, it was found that the offending vehicle was insured with the eighth respondent but while deciding issue No. 2, it was held that on 13.1.2009, the date on which the accident took place, the driver of the offending vehicle was not having a valid driving license. This was held to be in breach of the conditions of the Insurance Policy and consequently, the liability to pay compensation was fastened on the petitioner. The petitioner did not challenge the award by filing any appeal, as provided under Section 173 of the Act. However, it made an application on 11.1.2011 for review of the finding on issue No. 2. In the review application, it was alleged that the finding of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal on issue No. 2 requires to be reviewed. It was alleged that by inadvertence, the Tribunal overlooked the fact that the license of the driver was renewed from 23.5.2008 to 22.5.2009 and the same being a result of a clerical error, deserves to be corrected.

4. Before this Court, a copy of the award dated 21.2.2013 in Claim Petition No. 36 of 2009, which related to death of another person in the same accident, has been brought on record to demonstrate that therein, the Tribunal has held that the driver of the same offending vehicle was having a valid license and consequently, the liability to pay compensation was saddled on the Insurance Company. It is submitted before this Court that the Tribunal had, by inadvertence, ignored the stamp of renewal of the license and the same amounts to a clerical error and in relation to which the Tribunal had the power to make necessary corrections. It is alleged that the view taken by the Tribunal in the impugned order dated 18.5.2015 that it does not have the power of substantive review and, therefore, the application is not maintainable, is illegal, as the review sought by the petitioner was not a substantive review but for correction of a clerical error. It is alleged that the Tribunal under Section 169 of the Act is invested with the power to follow such procedure, as it thinks fit. Thus, its power and jurisdiction are not circumscribed by technicalities and in the facts and circumstances of the case, the review application should have been allowed.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Insurance Company submitted that the application filed by the petitioner, if allowed, would amount to a substantive review, which is not permissible, as no such power is conferred on the Tribunal. It is further contended that according to allegations made in the application, there was an error apparent on the face of the record and it cannot be construed to be a clerical error as contended by the petitioner.

6. These rival contentions fall for consideration.

7. It is first principle of law that generally a Court or a Tribunal or quasi judicial authority, once it has pronounced the judgm