ASMATH KHAN Vs. CHANDRAHASA BANGARA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant-petitioner met with an accident which resulted in fracture of his left lower limb. The Tribunal has calculated a compensation of Rs. 2,37,120/- and passed an award. Thereafter LA. No. 1219/98 was filed by the appellant under Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure to correct an arithmetical error occurred in paragraph 20 in computation of annual income and consequently in the total amount of compensation awarded. The insurance company filed I.A.No. 1293/98 for reviewing the award as compensation was calculated for permanent disability at 40%, though 40% disability as per the certificate produced by the claimant himself is attributable only to the lower limb and not to the whole body. The Tribunal considered both the applications and allowed both the applications partly. Instead of Rs. 2,37,120/- originally awarded, the Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs. 2,49,520/-. Now the contention of the appellant-claimant is that the Tribunal cannot review the award passed for any reason. It can only correct a clerical or arithmetical error. As far as his application is concerned, it is only for correction of a mathematical error, whereas the application of the insurance company is for reviewing the award. The learned Counsel for the appellant also relied on the decision of a learned single Judge of this Court in Abdul Majeed v. State of Kerala 2005 (2) KLT 434. In the above decision, it was held that the Tribunal has no power to review its own order. The above decision is contrary to the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Rajan v. Sukumaran 1997 (1) KLT 686. The Division Bench, after considering the various decisions, held that the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure could be followed by the Tribunal in the matter of review and in appropriate cases Tribunal has jurisdiction to review its own order.

(2.) It is submitted that the Division Bench in Rajan's case (supra) needs reconsideration. It was further submitted that the Apex Court in Patel Chunibhai v. Narayanrao held that a court or a Tribunal has no inherent power of review, unless such power is conferred by law either specifically or impliedly. Rule 395 of the Kerala Motor vehicles Rules specifically stated that certain provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure are made applicable to the proceedings before the Claims Tribunal. Rule 395 reads as follows:

(3.) The procedure to be followed and powers of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal are prescribed under Section 169 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988 (for short 'the Act') which reads as follows: