Hon'ble MAHESHWARI, J. - (1.) THIS writ petition by the claimant-petitioner is directed against the order dated 06. 01. 2005 as passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Barmer whereby the learned Tribunal has proceeded to allow a review application filed by the respondent No. 1 United India Insurance Company Ltd. and has recalled the order dated 24/9/2004 that was passed under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ('the Act').
(2.) BRIEFLY put, the background facts and relevant aspects of the matter are that the claimant-petitioner lost her husband Sheraram in a vehicular accident that occurred on 20/7/2002 on National Highway No. 15 near Varahai for collision of two vehicles bearing registration Nos. GJ-12/w-5255 and RJ- 04/g-0755. The claimant-petitioner and the parents of the deceased Sheraram have filed a claim application under Section 166 of the Act against the drivers, owners and insurers of both the vehicles involved in the accident while stating that the victim Sheraram was occupying the cabin of the vehicle bearing registration No. GJ-12/w-5255 and died for the injuries sustained in the accident. Along with the claim application, the claimants also filed an application under Section 140 of the Act claiming interim compensation in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- while stating joint and several liability of all the persons related with the vehicles involved in the accident. While dealing with the said application under Section 140 of the Act, the learned Tribunal observed in its order dated 24/9/2004 (Annex. 2) that at the given stage, the only relevant aspects were as to whether there had been a vehicular accident involving the vehicle in question that led to the demise of the victim; and, after finding that such essential facts were available on record; and, while observing that no other aspect was required to be considered at the given stage; and, while keeping the other objections of the non-applicants pending for consideration at the time of final disposal, proceeded to allow the application and directed the nonapplicant No. 3, the insurer of the vehicle bearing No. RJ-04 G- 0755 (the present respondent No. 1, United India Insurance Company Ltd.) to make payment of the amount of Rs. 50,000/- towards interim compensation with the stipulation that for nonpayment within one month, it shall carry interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim application. The relevant part of the said order dated 24. 09. 2004 reads as under: ...[VERNACULAR TEXT OMMITED]... The respondent-insurer (the non-applicant No. 3), however, filed a so-called review application, purportedly under Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure ('cpc') with the submissions, inter alia, that in relation to the incident in question the Investigating Agency filed a Final Report ('fr') that was not produced by the claimants and such report was not in its knowledge at the relevant time and hence, could not be referred earlier; and that the said FR was produced in another Claim Case No. 50/2003 relating to the same accident that was pending before the same Tribunal. The insurer (non-applicant No. 3) submitted that the said FR suggestive of the finding that the accident occurred for the fault of the deceased Sheraram was required to be considered; and prayed that the order as passed on 24. 09. 2004 may be recalled. The learned Tribunal by its impugned order dated 6/1/2005 (Annex. 4) proceeded to observe after perusing the documents produced that the responsibility towards accident was a matter of evidence and the position would be clear only upon production of evidence by the parties and, on these considerations, allowed the review application and recalled the order dated 24. 09. 2004 while observing that the application under Section 140 of the Act would remain pending and shall be decided at the time of final disposal of the main claim application. The learned Tribunal observed and ordered thus: ...[VERNACULAR TEXT OMMITED]... Challenging the aforesaid order dated 06. 01. 2005, the claimant-petitioner has filed this writ petition and learned counsel for the petitioner has strenuously contended that the Tribunal has been fundamentally in error in dealing with and allowing the so-called review application filed by the respondent-insurer though, according to the learned counsel, neither such review application was competent before the Tribunal concerned nor the order passed under Section 140 of the Act could have been recalled purportedly on the insurer raising the question about responsibility towards the accident. Learned counsel emphasized on the submissions that the interim award under Section 140 of the Act is essentially considered and made on the principles of no fault liability; and when the question of fault is not even germane to such an application, the claimant could not have been denied interim compensation during pendency of the claim application.
(3.) ON the other hand, learned counsel for the contesting respondent No. 1 -insurer vehemently and elaborately contended in the first place that the petitioner is not entitled for any relief in the writ jurisdiction of this Court and the impugned order calls for no interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India; and in that regard referred to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sadhana Lodh vs. National Insurance Company Ltd. and another: 2003 (2) WLC (SC) 255 and of this Court in Manikyapuri Housing Coop. Society vs. Mahesh Chaturvedi and another: 2004 (1) WLC (Raj.) 389 = RLW 2004 (3) Raj. 1677. Learned counsel further contended that the petitioner could have challenged the order impugned by way of a regular appeal under Section 173 of the Act and in that view of the matter also, no interference is called for under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Learned counsel further submitted that the review application as moved before the Tribunal was competent because the Rules under the Motor Vehicles Act are silent in that regard and the principles of Code of Civil Procedure would apply particularly when the Tribunal has all the trappings of Civil Court. Learned counsel submitted that when the basic questions involved in this matter are required to be decided at the time of final decision of the claim application, no case for interference is made out under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Learned counsel also submitted that the respondent-insurer had rightly moved the review application and the Tribunal has rightly recalled the order earlier passed; and that the claimants having concealed the facts about the relevant Final Report, are not entitled for any relief. Having given a thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions and having gone through the record, this Court is clearly of opinion that the impugned order cannot be sustained and this writ petition deserves to succeed; and for that matter, deserves to be allowed with costs. The principles relating to the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution do not call for much discussion or debate. It has been observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sadhana Lodh's case (supra) thus: "7. The supervisory jurisdiction conferred on the High Courts under Article 227 of the Constitution is confined only to see whether an inferior court or tribunal has proceeded within its parameters and not to correct an error apparent on the face of the record, much less of an error of law. In exercising the supervisory power under Article 227 of the Constitution, the High Court does not act as an appellate court or the tribunal. It is also not permissible to a High Court on a petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution to review or re-weigh the evidence upon which the inferior court or tribunal purports to have passed the order or to correct errors of law in the decision." ;