B V NAGARATHNA Vs. BASANAGOUDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BOTH the Civil Revision Petitions are preferred by Oriental Insurance Company Limited against the common judgment and order dated 05th February, 2003 passed in Review Petition Nos. 55 of 2002 and 54 of 2002 on the file of the Court of the Principal Civil Judge, Senior Division, and MACT, Raichur, for short, the MACT. Hence both the Civil Revision Petitions were clubbed and heard together and they are being disposed of by this common judgment.

(2.) CIVIL Revision Petition No. 1217 of 2003 is directed against the judgment in Review Petition No. 55 of 2002 whereas Civil Revision Petition No. 1022 of 2003 is directed against the judgment in Review Petition No. 54 Of 2002. Both the Civil Revision Petitions are filed before this Court under Section 115 of CPC. Review Petition Nos. 54 and 55 of 2002 were preferred by the Insurance Company before the MACT under Order 457, Rule 1, CPC seeking review of the judgment and award passed in MVC No. 639 of 1998 and MVC No. 640 of 1998, allowing the claim petition of the respondent-herein filed under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, for short, the Act for compensation on the ground that the awards were obtained by the claimants by playing fraud. There was delay in preferring the Review Petitions. Therefore, the Insurance Company had filed application seeking condonation of delay in preferring the Review Petitions. The respondent-claimants opposed the Review Petitions by filing Statement of Objections. The MACT by the impugned judgment and order dated 5th February, 2003, dismissed both the Review Petitions on the ground of delay as well as on merits. The Insurance Company being aggrieved by the above judgment of the MACT have preferred Civil Revision Petitions under Section 115 of CPC.

(3.) WE have heard Smt. Nagarathna, learned counsel for the Revision Petitioners and Sri Basavaprabhu S. Patil, learned counsel for the claimants-respondents.