SUNEETHA NAYAK Vs. B G HARSHADEVARA MATH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners have sought for quashing the order dated 4. 4. 2000 passed in M. V. C. No. 824 of 1988 on the file of the learned Additional civil Judge (Sr. Dn.) and M. A. C. T. , Udupi (Annexure 'a') by filing this writ petition.

(2.) THE records disclose that the husband of the petitioner No. 1 and father of petitioner No. 2, viz. , Sridhara Nayak, who was travelling in an autorickshaw on 17. 3. 1988 met with the accident at about 9. 20 p. m. , when a Matador van came from the opposite direction and dashed against the said autorickshaw. The said Sridhara nayak died due to the injuries sustained by him in the accident. The petitioners herein filed claim petition in M. V. C. No. 824 of 1988 before the learned Additional Civil judge (Sr. Dn.) and M. A. C. T. , Udupi. The parents of Sridhara Nayak filed M. V. C. No. 589 of 1988. During pendency of the matters, both the parents of Sridhara Nayak expired. These petitioners are the only remaining legal representatives of Sridhara nayak. Learned Claims Tribunal allowed the claim petition by its judgment dated 5. 5. 1999 and awarded global compensation of Rs. 3,08,060 to the claimants and further held that the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 herein (insured and insurer) are jointly and severally liable to pay the amount of compensation. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. (respondent No. 2 herein) filed application under Order XLVII, rule 1 read with section 151 of Civil Procedure Code before the M. A. C. T. , Udupi, praying for reviewing the award dated 5. 5. 1999 and consequently prayed for limiting its liability to rs. 50,000. The said application was allowed by the Claims Tribunal by the order dated 4. 4. 2000, which is impugned in this petition.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners contended that the Claims Tribunal could not have reviewed its award, inasmuch as, the powers of review are not conferred on the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal. In the alternate, he submitted that the circumstances stated in Order XLVII, rule 1 of civil Procedure Code are not existing and consequently, the power of review could not have been exercised by the court below. Per contra, Mr. B. C. Seetharamarao, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of insurance company argued in support of the order passed by the court below, inter alia, contending that the Claims Tribunal has power to review its order/award.