Kaushal Jayendra Thaker, J. - (1.) Though notice is served, none appears for the respondent. The reasons given for condonation of delay is that the United India Insurance Co. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as 'Insurance Company') was not aware that the fraud had been committed on them and they came to know about the award only after the execution was filed and they preferred a review which was rejected by the Tribunal below.
(2.) By way of this appeal the Insurance Company has felt aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 30.08.2008 granting relief of Rs.1,87,000/- in favour of the claimants. The main challenge is that according to the Insurance Company the cyclist who died had contributed to the accident having taken place. The next point is that it is well settled that no liability of payment of compensation can be fastened upon insurance company, wherein a case, insurance of particular vehicle was not valid and effective on the date of accident, but the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal despite specific pleading to this effect that in case of any manipulation in the insurance papers, the insurance company can not held liable to make payment of compensation, committed illegality in awarding compensation against appellant-insurance company, hence on this ground alone the impugned award is erroneous and liable to be set aside.
(3.) The Insurance Company have filed an application under Order 9, Rule 13 however it was not an ex parte. There was no forgery or fraud hence the Tribunal cannot be said to have committed any illegality and the submission of the learned counsel for the respondent that it was not an ex parte as it was an award given in the presence of the Insurance Company which has appeared before the Tribunal and files its written statement. The application being Misc. Case no. 14 of 2008 in MACP No. 38 of 2008 was also not proved that there was any forge committed on Insurance Company. The recall application requesting the Tribunal to recall of the order dated 30.05.2008 was rejected the same on the ground that review is not maintainable. The Tribunal in its well reasoned order has held as follows: Hon'ble the High Court of Allahabad in the case of 2003(1) TAC 551(Alld) Raj Kumari and others v. Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal , Jaunpur and others has held that the review application cannot be entertained either under the old Act or under the new Act. The Division Bench of Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad has in the case of 1991(1) TAC 449 (Alld) New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Bimla Devi , has observed that since there is no specific provision to review or the revision, which is to be created under only statute, the Tribunal has no power to review the award passed by it. Also the combined reading of Section 169 and Rule 221 of the Motor Vehicle Act and Rules thereunder, it can be said that the Motor Accident claims Tribunal do not possess the power to review its own award. Thus is view of the above, the review application is liable to be dismissed accordingly. ;