Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
Claims Tribunal Power of Review - The Claims Tribunal lacks express statutory authority to review its judgments or awards on merits under the Motor Vehicles Act (MV Act). Sections 169 and 173 of the MV Act do not confer such review powers, and rules do not provide for review, rendering any attempt to review an order as unauthorized. ["2024 0 Supreme(Gau) 20"]
Distinction Between Review and Recall - Review involves examining errors apparent on the record without re-evaluating merits, whereas recall or rehearing involves reconsidering the substantive issues. Courts and tribunals cannot exercise review powers as an appeal or to re-assess facts, only to correct apparent errors. ["
Jasmine Buildmart Private Limited vs Ahluwalia Contracts (India) Limited - Delhi
"], ["2023 7 Supreme 392"], ["2024 0 Supreme(Pat) 1056"], ["2024 0 Supreme(Pat) 1160"]Limitations on Review Power - Statutes like CPC Section 114 and tribunal-specific provisions restrict review to errors apparent on the face of the record. Review cannot be invoked to re-examine merits, correct errors of judgment, or substitute re-judgment, especially where statutory provisions do not explicitly grant such power. ["2024 0 Supreme(Gau) 862"], ["2023 7 Supreme 392"], ["2024 0 Supreme(Pat) 1056"], ["2024 0 Supreme(Pat) 1160"]
Tribunals as 'Funtus Officio' Post Judgment - Once a tribunal or court has passed a final judgment, it generally becomes functus officio, and subsequent modifications require specific review or appellate procedures. Unauthorized attempts to review judgments are invalid. ["2025 0 Supreme(Jhk) 1307"], ["2023 0 Supreme(Pat) 17"]
Judicial and Statutory Precedents - Supreme Court and High Court judgments emphasize that review is a limited remedy, confined to correcting apparent errors, not reappraising evidence or merits. Review petitions are not substitutes for appeals and cannot be used to re-argue the case. ["2012 7 Supreme 1"], ["2007 2 Supreme 177"], ["2003 3 Supreme 449"]
Inherent Powers and Review - Courts' inherent powers do not extend to reviewing their own decisions unless explicitly provided by law; otherwise, they risk usurping appellate functions. ["2012 7 Supreme 1"], ["2010 8 Supreme 353"]
Analysis and Conclusion:The consensus across various judicial decisions and statutory provisions is that Claims Tribunals and other tribunals do not possess inherent or statutory powers to review their judgments on merits. Review is strictly limited to correcting errors apparent on the record and cannot serve as an appellate mechanism. Any attempt to exercise review beyond these limits is invalid. Therefore, Claims Tribunal judgments are final, and their review is confined within narrow statutory bounds, emphasizing the importance of appeals for re-argument of substantive issues.
In the realm of motor accident claims in India, claimants and insurers often seek ways to correct perceived errors in tribunal awards. A common question arises: Does the have the power to review its judgment? The answer, based on established legal precedents, is generally no. Claims Tribunals under the (), do not possess inherent or statutory powers to review their judgments or awards unless explicitly provided by law. This limitation stems from their nature as with strictly defined jurisdictions. 2024 0 Supreme(Ker) 1096 2024 0 Supreme(Raj) 311
This blog post delves into the legal reasoning, key judgments, exceptions, and practical recommendations. Note that this is general information and not specific legal advice—consult a qualified lawyer for your case.
Claims Tribunals, also known as (), are specialized forums created under to adjudicate compensation claims arising from motor vehicle accidents. While they have some trappings of , such as powers under Section 169 to summon witnesses and enforce attendance, their authority is confined to the statute. 2024 0 Supreme(Gau) 20
Unlike regular , which derive from the (), tribunals are creatures of statute. They can only exercise powers explicitly conferred or necessarily implied. The and its rules do not provide for review powers. As held in a key judgment: The and the Rules do not contain any provision pertaining to review of the award passed by the Tribunal. 2024 0 Supreme(Raj) 311
outlines the tribunal's powers, but review is conspicuously absent. , which governs reviews in (allowing correction for , , or other sufficient cause), does not apply. Tribunals cannot invoke provisions unless specified. clearly states that the shall have certain powers, but the power of review is not among them. 2024 0 Supreme(Gau) 20
Courts have repeatedly affirmed: The Tribunal did not have the power to review its earlier award as it is not a court under the Code of Civil Procedure. 2024 0 Supreme(Ker) 1096
Indian courts have consistently ruled against implied review powers for MACTs:
In one case, a tribunal's refusal to review was upheld because alleged misinterpretation of evidence (e.g., vehicle fitness certificates) constituted a , not a procedural one warranting review. The Motor Accident has no power to review its order on merits. 2020 0 Supreme(All) 1100
While review is generally unavailable, narrow exceptions exist:
Even here, courts caution: The Tribunal has no power to review its judgment if there is no error apparent on the face of record. 2018 0 Supreme(All) 902
If dissatisfied with a tribunal award:
Legislators could amend the to include explicit review provisions, but currently, the position remains restrictive.
This principle extends beyond MACTs. and similarly lack review unless statutorily granted. The Tribunal does not have any power to review its own judgment or orders. 2010 0 Supreme(Del) 1279 reviews under are governed by strict rules, confined to Order XLVII grounds. 2023 5 Supreme 307
In conclusion, while tribunals provide speedy justice for accident victims, their decisions are final subject to appeal. Understanding these limits helps manage expectations and strategize effectively. Always seek professional legal counsel tailored to your situation.
This post is for informational purposes only and reflects general legal positions as of available precedents.
#ClaimsTribunal #MACTReview #MotorAccidentLaw
However, in the absence of express and substantive power of review being provided under the MV Act, neither the Tribunal nor the appellate authority shall have power to review the award/judgment on merit. In the case in hand, no new grounds are discernible to review the order dated 06.12.2022. ... In the absence of any such provision in the concerned statute, such #HL_S....
there is a distinction between the power of review and the power of recall of an order; the power of review would allow the Court to consider the merits of the claim raised and to determine if there is any error apparent on the face of the record, whereas, a power of recall can be exercised only where ... This would be usurping the jurisdiction of the Arbitral Tribunal.....
In any case, while exercising the power of review, the court/tribunal concerned cannot sit in appeal over its judgment/decision”. 22. ... This apart, whatever limitations are imposed by a statute, while conferring the power of review on a court or a tribunal, the court or the tribunal, as the case may be, must adhere to the limitations, which the relev....
In view of the above judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the power of Central Government to decide compensation was also considered. ... This civil review petition has been filed to review the judgment and order dated 08.03.2021 and 24.05.2021 passed in M.A. ... The Railway Claims Tribunal has dismissed the claim application filed by the claimants, who are responde....
The substantive power conferred under Section 114 CPC has not laid down any condition as condition precedent for exercise of power of review nor imposed any prohibition on the Court for exercising its power of review. ... It is his further submission that this Court, after hearing both the Counsel, passed the reasoned judgment, dismissing the MACMA, confirming the Award passed by the #HL....
could be decided after evidence is received and is not a preliminary issue; the claims of the Review Petitioner and GBTL would not be jeopardized and would not constitute a waiver of their rights of claims as non-signatory parties; that they must contest the arguments and factual claims made by Respondent ... According to the said provision, the Supreme Court would have power to review a....
The Review petitioner was not a party to the proceedings of Civil Appeal No. 1661 of 2020, however, claims to be an “aggrieved person” as according to the Review Petitioner, the impugned judgment had an effect over the proceedings pending between the Review Petitioner and the Sales Tax authorities, Vadodara ... From the above, it is evident that a power to review cannot....
The principles which can be culled out from the above noted judgments are:(i) The power of the Tribunal to review its order/decision under Section 22(3)(f) of the Act is akin/analogous to the power of a civil court under Section 114 read with Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. ... No. 208 of 2018 before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Patna, Bihar. The matter was heard and the application stood rejected on 20.03.2019. The ....
It is trite that after deciding the lis pending before it, the Tribunal becomes functus officio. Subsequently, the judgment rendered by it can only be varied either under Article 226/227 or on a review application. The Tribunal could not have entertained the application for modification. ... The only course of action open to the aggrieved party was to challenge the said judgment under Article 226/227 or t....
The principles which can be culled out from the above noted judgments are: (i) The power of the Tribunal to review its order/decision under Section 22(3)(f) of the Act is akin/analogous to the power of a Civil Court under Section 114 read with Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. ... No. 208 of 2018 before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Patna, Bihar. The matter was heard and the application stood rejected on 20.03.2019. The....
The error, if any, by the Tribunal relates to misinterpretation of an evidence filed by the petitioner before the Tribunal or ignoring a relevant and material document and therefore could be an error apparent on the face of record, a ground for review on merits if the Tribunal had the substantive power to review its order on merits. Thus, the tribunal rightly refused to review its award and rightly dismissed the application filed by the petitioner. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal ....
The Tribunal rejected the Application on the ground that all these facts have already been considered while deciding the Original Application. An attempt to re-agitate the issue is not permissible under Section 22(3)(f) of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985. Moreover the Tribunal has no power to review its judgment if there is no error apparent on the face of record.
In an application under Sections 151, 152 and 153 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the learned Tribunal has no power to review its judgment; (i) The learned Tribunal has no power to review as the Act does not enable the Tribunal to review its judgment; The application for review was filed after a period of 7 months, although the limitation is only 30 days; Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted as under:-
(i) Tribunal has no power to review or recall its own award. 12. Mr. P. Paramasiva Das, the learned counsel for the claimant made the following submissions: The decision reported in 2000 ACJ 1032 (United India Insurance Co Ltd vs. Rajendra Singh and Others) is not applicable to the present case.
In the purported exercise of inherent power the Tribunal cannot rehear a case on its merits: CIT v. K.L. Bhatia [1990] 182 ITR 361 (Delhi)." It has not been vested with the review jurisdiction by the statute creating it. The Tribunal does not have any power to review its own judgment or orders. [See Dr. Kashnath G. Jalmi v. The Speaker, AIR 1993 SC 1873; [1993] 3 JT 594 (SC); Dr. Smt. Kuntesh Gupta v. Management of Hindu Kanya Mahavidyalaya, AIR 1987 SC 2186; Patel Narshi Tha....
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
