RACHHPAL RAJ Vs. P.S. SURESHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS order will dispose of Civil Revision Petition Nos. 3374, 3375, 4285 and 4286 of 1996. For the purposes of this judgment, the facts ae being taken from Civil Revision No. 3374 of 1996.

(2.) THE facts necessary for the decision of this petition are that on 7.11.1985 a Matador in which Jasjit Singh, his grandmother Rachhpal Kaur and his cousin Jagatbir were transporting articles of furniture from Karnal to Mohali met with an accident near village Jainpura, with a truck which formed part of the military convoy coming from the opposite direction. Since Jasjit Singh and Rachhpal Kaur had sustained injuries in the accident they filed separate claim petition Nos. 24 and 25 of 1986 respectively which were disposed of on 22.10.1986 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Kurukshetra. The Tribunal after assessing the compensation had passed identical orders against respondent Nos. 1 to 3 indicating that drivers and owners were severally and jointly liable for the same. Before doing so, the Tribunal had come to the conclusion :

(3.) THE impugned order passed by the Tribunal is being assailed before me on two grounds. Firstly it is submitted that in the award the Tribunal had found that the accident had taken place on account of the negligence of the drivers of both the vehicles. Since neither Rachhpal Kaur nor Jasjit Singh was driving the vehicle, this would not be a case of contributory negligence but one of composite negligence in which case it was open to the Court to direct that the compensation awarded could be recoverable from either of the two joint tortfeasors. In such a case, there was no question of the order being amended on a subsequent date by the successor Court while exercising powers under Sections 151, 152 and 153 CPC. Secondly, it is submitted that the relief sought for and granted to the Union of India does not fall within the scope of the provisions of Sections 151, 152 and 153 of the CPC as the same sis not a correction of clerical or arithmetical mistake in the order nor can it be said to be an error which has arisen in the award on account of accidental slip or omission.