SIBA RAM SARMA Vs. AFIYA BEGUM AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. N Nath, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. HC Sarma, learned counsel for the respondents.

(2.) This application under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been preferred challenging the order dated 02.03.2016 whereby the review petition filed by the present petitioner was rejected by the learned MACT No. 3, Kamrup at Guwahati on a technical ground. The learned Additional District and Sessions Judge (FTC No. 2) as MAC Tribunal designated under the Act passed an award on 07.07.2011 in MAC Case No. 744/2007. This MAC Case was registered by renumbering the original MAC Case No. 2678/2004. By that judgment and award, the learned Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs. 3,29,600/- as compensation to the claimants along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of the case and the owner (Siba Ram Sarma) was held liable to make payment. Subsequently, this Siba Ram Sarma, as petitioner, filed an application before the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge (FTC No. 2) for review of this order. It is to be noted here that in the mean time all the motor accident claims cases allotted to the court of learned Additional District and Sessions Judge (FTC No. 2) was transferred to the regular MAC Tribunal No. 3, Kamrup at Guwahati. Mr. N Nath, learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that the court of the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge (FTC No. 2) is no longer a Tribunal under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and the regular MAC Tribunals including MACT No. 3 have been taking up all claim cases under the Act. Accordingly, this application for review was also forwarded to the Court of learned MACT No. 3, Kamrup at Guwahati but the learned Tribunal taking a technical view of the matter refused to exercise the review jurisdiction only on the ground that the order was not passed by him or by his Court. According to Mr. N Nath, learned counsel for the petitioners, all MAC cases pending before the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge No. 4 were withdrawn as per the order of the High Court and thereafter they were transferred to MACT No. 3, Kamrup at Guwahati for disposal. That being the condition, the earlier court of District and Sessions Judge No. 4 or District and Sessions Judge (FTC No. 2) ceased to be MAC Tribunal at all. As the records of MAC Case No. 744/2007 (new) and MAC Case No. 2678/2004 (old) stood transferred to the MAC Tribunal No. 3, Kamrup at Guwahati for subsequent exercise like execution and/or any other matter, the learned MAC Tribunal No. 3 has only jurisdiction to try a review petition arising in the aforesaid MAC case. Mr. HC Sarma, learned counsel for the opposite parties, agree to the proposition put forward by Mr. N Nath and accordingly the revision petition is disposed of as agreed to by the parties. The impugned order stands set aside. The matter is remitted to the MACT No. 3, Kamrup at Guwahati for consideration of the review petition on merit. The learned Tribunal shall have jurisdiction not only to decide the review petition on merit but also on maintainability and all objections, available under law, if raised by the opposite parties, shall be considered by the learned Tribunal in accordance with law.

(3.) The appropriate records shall be transmitted to the court of MACT No. 3 by the appropriate authority for decision of the review petition as directed above.