IMPORTANT POINT
Mere possibility of two views on the subject is not a ground for review.

A.C. Upadhyay, J.—By this petition under article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the power and jurisdiction of the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Sonamura, West Tripura to review its own order in Miscellaneous (Review) 4 of 2009, arising out of T.S. (MAC) 35 of 2008.

2. Heard Mr. P.K. Dhar learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. T.D. Majumder, learned counsel for the respondents.

3. Sans elaborate details, necessary facts for the purpose of disposal of this petition, may be stated, as follows:-

Smt. Rekha Paul, preferred T.S. (MAC) 35 of 2008, before the Member Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal Sonamura, praying for compensation on account of injuries sustained by her in a motor vehicle accident caused by AutoCanter No.TR-01-D-1687. The claim case was contested by the owner and the driver of the vehicle as well as by the insurer, India Assurance Company Ltd. The learned Member, MACT, Sonamura after holding enquiry in the claim case, passed the judgment and award dated 4.4.2009, directing the owner of the vehicle, respondent No.1 herein to pay compensation of Rs. 2.84,660 to the claimant.

The owner of the vehicle, respondent No. 1 being aggrieved, preferred a review application under order 47 Rule 1 read with Section 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure, before the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Sonamura, for review of the said judgment and order. In the aforesaid review application respondent No. 1 had sought of modification and correction of the error apparent on the face of the records, due to misinterpretation with a direction upon the New India Assurance Company Ltd. to satisfy the award of compensation. The petitioner Insurance company, contested the review application by filing written statement. After hearing the parties, the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, passed the impugned order dated 2.12.2009, allowing the review application filed by respondent No.1 and accordingly modified and corrected the technical error in the judgment and award dated 4.4.2009, passed in TS(MAC) No.35 of 2008, by shifting the liability of payment of compensation, upon the petitioner Insurance Company.

4. The moot question for consideration revolves round the issue as to whether the provisions of order 47 read with section 114 of the Civil Procedure Code, can be pressed into service to extend the relief sought for by the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the impugned order passed by the learned Tribunal modifying its earlier order dated 4.4.2009 is without jurisdiction and, therefore, has prayed for quashing the said order dated 21.12.2009 passed by the learned Tribunal.

5. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner by referring to the provision of Section 169 of M.V. Act, 1988, submitted that a Claims Tribunal would no :have jurisdiction to entertain a review petition against and judgment and aware, passed by it.

6. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, since there is no express provisions of law in the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 or Rules framed thereunder, conferring the power of review upon the claim Tribunal, it cannot exercise review power like a civil court of ordinary jurisdiction, as per relevant provision of CPC.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner referring to a decision of the Division Bench of this High Court, Goljan Nesha v. Gammon India Ltd. and Ors. 2007 ACJ 1341 has submitted that since review power has not been specifically conferred on the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal it will not have review jurisdiction.

8. In Goljan Nesha (supra), the issue before the Division Bench was whether the Commissioner under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, had the jurisdiction either to revise or to review its own order?

9. While examining review power of the Commissioner under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1923, and Rules framed thereunder, the Division Bench of this court hel