MOHAMMAD TASIN Vs. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner is the owner of motor vehicle (autorickshaw) involved in the vehicular accident that took place on 5.5.2001 causing the death of one Abdul Rashid Bhat, whos wife, minor son and daughter, filed a claim petition before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal at Srinagar, During pendency of the proceed- ings interim relief of Rs. 50,000, on the basis of no fault liability, was awarded to the claimants by the Tribunal vide its order dated 1.9.2003. In the order, the liability to pay the interim relief was fixed on New India Assurance Co. Ltd., the answering respondent to the claim petition. However, the insurance company sought correction of the order inasmuch as the no fault liabil- ity was mistakenly and erroneously fixed on the insurance company when there was no basic contract of insurance between the insurance company and the vehicle owner.

(2.) The Tribunal, .after hearing counsel for the parties, corrected the order to fix the liability for interim compensation on answering respondent No. 3, the owner of the vehicle, the revision petitioner before this court, by order dated 9.10.2003. This order is impugned in this revision petition on the ground that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to pass such an order and the direction suffers from norf^pplication of mind and further there is no provision of review whereunder Claims Tribunal could have passed such an order.

(3.) Heard. It is seen from the annexures to the revision petition that what the Tri- bunal has done is that it has posted liability of interim maintenance on the owner of the vehicle and let off the insurance com- pany, on the premise that there is no con- tract between the insured and the insurer and in absence of basic insurance contract to cover the liability, the insurance com- pany cannot be held liable to indemnify the claimants. The Tribunal has expressly stated in the order that fixing up liability for the amount on the insurer was on the mistaken view of the matter construing proposal form of the company as insurance policy/contract inter se the parties on the material date. Obviously, the Tribunal has not changed the basis of the order of the judgment, but what it has done is that it has placed the liability on the owner of the vehicle to correct the error/mistake in the order and the Tribunal, or for that matter, courts cannot be said to lack jurisdiction to correct the fundamental error in the order. The mistake is admittedly a justifiable rea- son to correct or recall an order notwith- standing the finality which may be given to the order.