Bombay High Court
Sunanda Haribhau Khaire vs The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., The ... on 2 January, 2024
Author: Abhay Ahuja
Bench: Abhay Ahuja
2024:BHC-AS:346
First Appeal (St) No. 22902 of 2021.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
FIRST APPEAL (ST) NO. 22902 OF 2021
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION NO. 133 OF 2023
IN
FIRST APPEAL (ST) NO. 22902 OF 2021
AND
INTERIM APPLICATION (ST) NO. 22909 OF 2021
IN
FIRST APPEAL (ST) NO. 22902 OF 2021
The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., )
The Divisional Manager, Address- Third )
Floor, Rushabh Plaza Vidya Vikas Circle, )
Sharanpur Road, Nashik Present Address; )
New India Assurance Building (HO), 87 )
M.G. Road, Fort, Mumbai -400 001. ) ... APPELLANT
Vs.
1. Haribhau Damu Khaire )
Aged 57 years, Occ. Nil )
2. Sunanda Haribhau Khaire )
Aged 53 years, Occ. Household )
Both Residing at, Raut Mala, )
Dhatrak Phata, Panchavati, Nashik )
3. Piramal Logistics Pvt. Ltd. )
6, Kusumchand Park, O.N.G.C. )
Road, Ichvapore, Surat, Gujrat )
State-395 007 ) ...RESPONDENTS
Nikita Gadgil 1 of 21
::: Uploaded on - 05/01/2024 ::: Downloaded on - 28/01/2024 06:44:29 :::
First Appeal (St) No. 22902 of 2021.doc
Mrs. S. S. Dwivedi, Advocate for the Appellant/Applicants in IAST 22909 /
2021.
Mr. R. R. Varma with Mr. Sanket Thorat and Mr. Sachin Suware, Advocate
for the Respondents No.2 / Applicant in IA 133/2023.
CORAM : ABHAY AHUJA, J.
RESERVED ON : 17th AUGUST, 2023
PRONOUNCED ON : 2nd JANUARY, 2024
JUDGMENT :
1. This Appeal has been filed under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles
Act, 1988 (the "M.V. Act") challenging the judgment and award dated 10 th
December, 2019 passed in Review Application being M.A.C.P. (Review
Application) No. 22 of 2015 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Nashik (the "Tribunal") in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.760 of 2012
allowing the said Review Application and modifying Award dated 2 nd
January, 2015 passed by the Tribunal enhancing the compensation payable
to the Respondents No.1 and 2 by the Appellant and Respondent No.3
from Rs.4,54,000/- ( inclusive of the amount of "no-fault liability" with
interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of institution of claim petition till
realization) to Rs.13,30,000/- ( inclusive of the amount of "no-fault
liability" with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date to of institution of claim
petition till realization).
Nikita Gadgil 2 of 21
First Appeal (St) No. 22902 of 2021.doc
2. The brief facts in this matter are as follows. On 15 th June, 2012 at
about 5:30 a.m., Mayur Haribhau Khaire was riding pillion on his brother,
Devidas Haribhau Khaire's motorcycle bearing registration no. MH-15/DE-
7047. Mayur was sitting with a bundle of newspapers. When they reached
Rasbihari Square, suddenly container bearing registration no. HR-38/M-
7221, whose driver was driving the container at a high speed and in a
negligent manner, gave a violent dash to the motorcycle bearing
registration No, MH-15/DE-7047 owing to which pillion rider Mayur
sustained several injuries on his head and died on the spot itself. Offence
bearing C.R. No. 243/2012 has been registered against the container
driver at Panchvati PS. The Respondents No.1 and 2 are the parents of the
deceased Mayur and were dependent on the income of the deceased at the
time of the incident. The Respondents No.1 and 2 filed a claim under
Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act for awarding compensation of
Rs.55,00,000/- towards death of Mayur against the Appellant Insurance
Company and Respondent No.3 owner of the Container.
3. From the evidence on record the Tribunal held that the Respondents
No.1 and 2 Claimants had established that the accident took place due to
the rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the offending
Nikita Gadgil 3 of 21
First Appeal (St) No. 22902 of 2021.doc
container who gave a violent dash to the motorcycle behind it where the
deceased Mayur was sitting as a pillion rider owing to which he sustained
fatal injuries on his head which was sufficient to cause his death. Thus the
Tribunal held that the driver of the offending container was solely
responsible for causing the accidental death of the deceased Mayur. The
Tribunal further held that the offending container was owned by the
Respondent No.3 and insured with the Appellant at the relevant time of
the accident and therefore both the Appellant and Respondent No.3 were
jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to Respondents No.1 and
2.
4. On the issue of quantum of compensation, the Tribunal held that at
the time of the accident the deceased was 20 years old. The Respondents
No.1 and 2 filed various documents regarding the education of the
deceased. The Respondent No.2 being the mother of the deceased,
deposed that the deceased Mayur was selling newspapers and earning
Rs.15,000/- per month. The Tribunal held that there was no document on
record regarding the income of the deceased and therefore took the
notional income to be Rs.3900/- per month considering the increase of
dearness and distress. As per Schedule II the multiplier available to the
Nikita Gadgil 4 of 21
First Appeal (St) No. 22902 of 2021.doc
Respondents No.1 and 2 claimants would be 16. Taking the monthly
income into account the annual income would be Rs.46,800/-. Out of the
said income, 50% amount was to be deducted towards personal expenses
of the deceased as he was a bachelor and so the annual income came to
Rs.23,400/- towards dependency. This amount multiplied by 16 came to
Rs.3,74,000/- towards dependency. Besides this, the Respondents No.1
and 2 were held to be entitled to get Rs.20,000/- towards funeral charges,
Rs.30,000/- towards love and affection and Rs.30,000/- towards loss of
estate. The Tribunal therefore held that the Respondents No.1 and 2 the
Claimants as being entitled to a total amount of Rs.4,54,000/-from the
Appellant and Respondent No.3 jointly and severally inclusive of NFL
amount along with interest @ 9% per annum thereon from the date of this
application till realization of the amount. The said amount was to be paid
equally to the Respondents No.1 and 2 by account payee cheques.
5. Aggrieved by this Judgment and Award, the Respondents No.1 and
2 filed a Review Application being M.A.C.P. (Review Application) No. 22 of
2015 on the ground that although they had tendered the judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Radha Krishna and another v. Gokul
Nikita Gadgil 5 of 21
First Appeal (St) No. 22902 of 2021.doc
and others1 before the Tribunal, the same was not considered. It was
submitted on behalf of the Respondents No. 1 and 2 that as per the
judgment in the case of Radha Krishna and another v. Gokul and others
(supra) while deciding compensation in case of accident suffered by a
student of an engineering course which had taken place in the year 2003,
the earning of the student was considered to be Rs.60,000/- per annum. It
was submitted on behalf of the Respondents No. 1 and 2 that in the
present case the accident took place on 15.07.2012 and the deceased was
also a 2nd year engineering student pursuing his course from Pune
University and he was already having a diploma in Mechanical
Engineering which he completed in 2010-2011 and secured first class with
distinction. Accordingly it was submitted that the monthly income for
calculating the compensation amount should have been taken as
Rs.15,000/- per month as per the observation of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the aforementioned judgment and therefore the compensation
amount ought to be enhanced to Rs.10,00,000/-.
6. It was further submitted on behalf of the Respondents No.1 and 2
Claimants that the Tribunal not considering the decision in the case of
1 2013 (4) T.A.C. 737 (SC)
Nikita Gadgil 6 of 21
First Appeal (St) No. 22902 of 2021.doc
Radha Krishna and another v. Gokul and others (supra) would make the
judgment and award of the Tribunal patently illegal and passed in
ignorance of the law declared by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and therefore
a review application would lie in the present case. On the other hand it
was submitted on behalf of the Appellant that the Respondents No.1 and 2
did not prefer an appeal against the Judgment and award passed by the
Tribunal and they could not prefer a Review Application and merely
because there may be an erroneous decision, a review proceeding is not
maintainable. The Tribunal set out the principles laid down in the
decisions of Kamlesh Verma v. Mayawati2 and Union of India v. Sandur
Manganese and Iron Ores Ltd. 3 of when a review is maintainable and held
that in this case from a perusal of the record and proceeding of MACP No.
760 of 2012 showed that the Respondents No.1 and 2 Claimants had filed
the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Radha Krishna and
another v. Gokul and others (supra) along with pursis and the Presiding
Officer has passed the remark "seen" on 29.12.2014. The Tribunal further
held that from a perusal of the judgment and award dated 02.01.2015 it
appeared that no reference had been made to the judgment in the case of
Radha Krishna and another v. Gokul and others (supra) . The Tribunal
2 (2013) 8 SCC 320.
3 (2013) 8 SCC 337.
Nikita Gadgil 7 of 21
First Appeal (St) No. 22902 of 2021.doc
further held that although it was stated in paragraph 11 of the judgment
that at the relevant time of the accident the deceased was a second year
engineering student, however while discussing the quantum of
compensation to be paid to the Respondents No.1 and 2 claimants, it has
been observed that no documentary evidence of the income of the
deceased was found on record. Further, even future prospects had not
been considered while deciding the quantum of compensation payable to
the Respondents No.1 and 2 claimants. The Tribunal held that it was clear
that the judgment in the case of Radha Krishna and another v. Gokul and
others (supra) had not been considered while deciding the quantum of
compensation payable to the Respondents No.1 and 2 claimants. The
Tribunal therefore held that part of the judgment and award required to
be reviewed and modified considering the observations of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Radha Krishna and another v. Gokul and
others (supra). The Tribunal therefore held that since the deceased was in
the second year of mechanical engineering at the time of the accident
which took place on 15.06.2012 and was aged about 20 years, and since
in the year 2003 the Hon'ble Supreme Court took the income of the victim
to be Rs.60,000/- per annum, in the present case, since the accident took
place in 2012, therefore considering the rate of inflation, the annual
Nikita Gadgil 8 of 21
First Appeal (St) No. 22902 of 2021.doc
income of the deceased was to be taken to be Rs.1,00,000/- per annum
and the compensation amount was recalculated on that basis. Accordingly,
the Tribunal allowed the review application and modified the quantum of
compensation amount payable to the Respondents No.1 and 2 Claimants
from Rs.4,54,000/- to Rs.13,30,000/- as payable by the Appellant and
Respondent No.3 jointly and severally inclusive of the amount of "no fault
liability" to the Respondents No.1 and 2 Claimants with interest at the
rate of 9% p.a. from the date of institution of the claim petition till its
realization. The same was to be paid equally to the Respondents No.1 and
2 Claimants via account payee cheque.
7. Aggrieved by this Judgment and New Award dated 10.12.2019
passed by the Tribunal in Review Application No. 22 of 2015 in Motor
Accident Claim Petition No.760 of 2012, the Appellant Insurance
Company has preferred this appeal primarily on the ground that the
Tribunal erred in allowing the Review Application filed by the
Respondents No.1 and 2 as there is an absence of a specific provision
providing for a review and since the power of review has been excluded
under Rules 275 and 276 of the Motor Accident Rules defining the
procedures and powers of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, the
Nikita Gadgil 9 of 21
First Appeal (St) No. 22902 of 2021.doc
Tribunal cannot review its judgment on merits and that the Respondents
No.1 and 2 ought to have exercised their statutory remedy of appeal and
the Review Application was not maintainable. It has been submitted on
behalf of the Appellant that no new facts were brought out which were
not pleaded earlier in the application and also no grounds for review had
been made out and hence the review was not maintainable. That the
Respondents No.1 and 2 failed to establish that there was any error
apparent in the judgment and hence the Review Application ought to have
been dismissed.
8. Mrs. S.S. Dwivedi, learned counsel for the Appellant, in support of
the above contention has relied upon the decision of this Court in the case
of Meena w/of Popat Mhaske and Anr. v. Manager, Bajaj Allianz General
Insurance Co. Ltd., Pune and Others 4 where it was held that as there is a
specific absence of a statutory provision providing for a review and since
the power of review under Section 114 and Order XLVII have been
excluded under Rules 275 and 276 of the Motor Accident Rules defining
the procedure and powers of the Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal, it
cannot review its judgment on its merits.
4 2019 (6) BCR 392.
Nikita Gadgil 10 of 21
First Appeal (St) No. 22902 of 2021.doc
9. Mr. R.R. Varma, learned counsel for Respondent No.2, on the other
hand submitted that the Tribunal had inadvertently failed to consider the
judgment of Radha Krishna and another v. Gokul and others (supra) for
calculating the compensation amount payable to the Respondents No.1
and 2 by considering the educational qualification of the deceased. He
submitted that the Review Application can be entertained and decided in
accordance with Section 169 of the Motor Vehicles Act and in accordance
with Sections 151 and 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ("Civil
Procedure Code") and under Order XVII Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure
Code. Mr. Varma has relied upon the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the cases of Kamlesh Verma v. Mayawati5 and Union of India v.
Sandur Manganese and Iron Ores Ltd. & Ors. 6 where the Hon'ble Supreme
Court has set out the principles as to when a review will be maintainable
and when the same will not be maintainable. He has also relied upon the
decisions of the Allahabad High Court in the case of Oriental Insurance
Co. Ltd. v. Fida Ali and Ors.7 where it was held that a review application is
maintainable when it is sought due to a procedural defect or inadvertent
error committed by the Tribunal to prevent abuse of its process and the
Gujarat High Court in the case of The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v.
5 (2013) 8 SCC 320.
6 (2013)8 SCC 337
7 1995 ACJ 572
Nikita Gadgil 11 of 21
First Appeal (St) No. 22902 of 2021.doc
Thakor Kanaji Viraji8 where it has been held that the review application
would fall under Order XVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure since it
was an error apparent on the face of the record.
10. I have heard Mrs. S.S. Dwivedi, learned counsel for the Appellant
and Mr. R.R. Varma, learned counsel for the Respondent No. 2 and with
their able assistance, I have perused the papers and proceedings in the
matter and considered the rival contentions.
11. Whether Appellant Insurance Company and the Respondent No.3,
the owner of the offending vehicle are jointly and severally liable to pay
compensation to the Respondents No.1 and 2 is not in dispute. The
Claimants viz. Respondents No.1 and 2 were aggrieved by the quantum of
compensation as the Tribunal did not consider the decision in the case of
Radhakrishnan and Anr Vs. Gokul and Others (supra), and granted only a
compensation of Rs.4,54,000/-, without considering that at the time of his
death, the deceased was in the second year of mechanical engineering and
even though the said decision had been taken on record and therefore
filed a review before the Tribunal and the Tribunal after applying the
decision in the case of Radhakrishnan and Anr Vs. Gokul and Others
8 R/Special Application No. 16750 of 2019 with R/First Appeal No. 3153 of 2019.
Nikita Gadgil 12 of 21
First Appeal (St) No. 22902 of 2021.doc
(supra), enhanced the compensation from Rs.4,54,000/- to
Rs.13,30,000/-. The Insurance Company is aggrieved that the Tribunal
could not have enhanced the compensation in a review. Therefore, the
principal and the only ground of challenge in this Appeal is that a review
was not maintainable against the Judgment and Award dated 2 nd January,
2015 as the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal does not have the power of
review.
12. It is not in dispute that the Respondents No.1 and 2 Claimants, had
filed the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Radha Krishna and
another v. Gokul and others (supra) along with pursis before the Tribunal
at the time of hearing of the M.A.C. P. No.760 of 2012 and the Presiding
Officer has passed the remark "seen" on 29.12.2014. The issue is whether
the Review Application would be maintainable or not in the facts and
circumstances of the case.
13. In its decision in the case of Kamlesh Verma v. Mayawati (supra),
the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has in Paragraph 20 summarized the
grounds under which a review will be maintainable and when a review
will not be maintainable. Paragraph 20 is usefully quoted as under:
Nikita Gadgil 13 of 21
First Appeal (St) No. 22902 of 2021.doc
"20. Thus, in view of the above, the following grounds of review are
maintainable as stipulated by the statute:
(i) Discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after
the exercise of due diligence, was not within knowledge of the
petitioner or could not be produced by him;
(ii) Mistake or error apparent on the face of the record;
(iii) Any other sufficient reason.
20.2. When the review will not be maintainable:
(i) A repetition of old and overruled argument is not enough to
reopen concluded adjudications.
(ii) Minor mistakes of inconsequential import.
(iii) Review proceedings cannot be equated with the original
hearing of the case.
(iv) Review is not maintainable unless the material error, manifest
on the face of the order, undermines its soundness or results in
miscarriage of justice.
(v) A review is by no means an appeal in disguise whereby an
erroneous decision is reheard and corrected but lies only for patent
error.
(vi) The mere possibility of two views on the subject cannot be a
ground for review.
(vii) The error apparent on the face of the record should not be an
error which has to be fished out and searched.
(viii) The appreciation of evidence on record is fully within the
domain of the appellate court, it cannot be permitted to be
advanced in the review petition.
(ix) Review is not maintainable when the same relief sought at the
time of arguing the main matter had been negatived."
These principles have been reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of Union of India v. Sandur Manganese and Iron Ores Ltd. (supra).
Nikita Gadgil 14 of 21
First Appeal (St) No. 22902 of 2021.doc
14. In its decision in the case of Arun Dev Upadhyaya v. Integrated
Sales Service Limited and Another 9, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held
as under:
"35. From the above, it is evident that a power to review cannot be
exercised as an appellate power and has to be strictly confined to
the scope and ambit of Order XVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil
Procedure. An error on the face of record must be such an error
which, mere looking at the record should strike and it should not
require any long-drawn process of reasoning on the points where
they may be conceivably two opinions."
15. In Grindlays Bank Ltd. v. Central Govt. Industrial Tribunal 10 the
Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the expression "review" is used in the
two distinct senses, namely (1) a procedural review which is either
inherent or implied in a court or Tribunal to set aside a palpably erroneous
order passed under a misapprehension by it, and (2) a review on merits
when the error sought to be corrected is one of law and is apparent on the
face of the record. It is in the latter sense that the court in Patel Narshi
Thakershi case11 held that no review lies on merits unless a statute
specifically provides for it. Obviously when a review is sought due to a
procedural defect, the inadvertent error committed by the Tribunal must
9 (2023) 8 SCC 11.
10 1980 Supp SCC 420.
11 AIR 1970 SC 1273
Nikita Gadgil 15 of 21
First Appeal (St) No. 22902 of 2021.doc
be corrected ex debito justitiae to prevent the abuse of its process, and
such power inherents in every court or Tribunal.
16. In the case of Meena w/of Popat Mhaske and Anr. v. Manager, Bajaj
Allianz General Insurance Co. Ltd., Pune and Others (supra) this Court
had the occasion to consider the issue whether a Motor Accidents Claim
Tribunal has a statutory power of review. Paragraphs 13 (relevant
extracts), 28 and 30 are usefully quoted as under:
"13. I find it appropriate to rely upon the view taken by the
Honourable Apex Court in the matter of U.P.S.R.T.C. (supra) and
especially the conclusions drawn in Paragraphs No.7, 8 and 9 which
read as under:
Section 152 provides for correction of clerical or arithmetical
mistakes in judgments, decrees or orders or errors arising from any
accidental slip or omission. The exercise of this power contemplates
the correction of mistakes by the Court of its ministerial actions
and does not contemplate of passing effective judicial orders after
the judgment, decree or order... It implies that this section cannot
be pressed into service to correct an omission which is intentional,
however erroneous that may be...
28. I find that though Section 151 pertains to the inherent powers
of the Civil Court, it can make such orders under that provision
which would be necessary to meet the ends of justice or to prevent
abuse of the process of the Court. However, if Section 151 is to be
interpreted in a way so as to mean that the Tribunal can practically
overturn its earlier decision and arrive at a new decision, it would
be against the intent and object of the legislature to keep Section
114 and Order XVII away from the Motor Vehicles Act. The
legislature intends that the Tribunal should not cause review and
should not entertain a review as regards it's order or judgment
delivered on merits...
Nikita Gadgil 16 of 21
First Appeal (St) No. 22902 of 2021.doc
30. In view of the above, as there is a specific absence of a
statutory provision providing for a review and since the power of
review under Section 114 and Order XVII have been excluded
under Rules 275 and 276 defining the procedure and powers of the
Tribunal, a Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal cannot review its
judgment on its merits. To make it more clear, correcting a simple
error or mistake or arithmetical calculations would be permitted
under Sections 151/152/153. However, a mistake as like the one
which has occurred in paragraph 22 of the judgment of the Tribunal
in the case at hand, which would alter the decision of the Tribunal
and which would require a re-argument and re-appreciation of
evidence would not be permissible".
17. In particular reference to the powers under Section 152 of the Civil
Procedure Code it would also be relevant to refer to the decision of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Punjab v. Darshan Singh12 ,
paragraph 12 whereof is usefully quoted as under:
"Section 152 provides for correction of clerical or arithmetical
mistakes in judgments, decrees or orders or errors arising therein
from any accidental slip or omission. The exercise of this power
contemplates the correction of mistakes by the court of its
ministerial actions and does not contemplate passing of effective
judicial orders after the judgment, decree or order. The settled
position of law is that after the passing of the judgment, decree or
order, the same becomes final subject to any further avenues of
remedies provided in respect of the same and the very court or the
tribunal cannot and, on mere change of view, is not entitled to vary
the terms of the judgments, decrees and orders earlier passed
except by means of review, if statutorily provided specifically
therefor and subject to the conditions or limitations provided
therein. The powers under Section 152 of the Code are neither to
be equated with the power of review nor can be said to be akin to
review or even said to clothe the court concerned under the guise of
12 AIR 2003 SC 4179.
Nikita Gadgil 17 of 21
First Appeal (St) No. 22902 of 2021.doc
invoking after the result of the judgment earlier rendered, in its
entirety or any portion or part of it. The corrections contemplated
are of correcting only accidental omissions or mistakes and not all
omissions and mistakes which might have been committed by the
court while passing the judgment, decree or order. The omission
sought to be corrected which goes to the merits of the case is
beyond the scope of Section 152 as if it is looking into it for the first
time, for which the proper remedy for the aggrieved party, if at all,
is to file an appeal or revision before the higher forum or review
application before the very forum, subject to the limitations in
respect of such review. It implies that the section cannot be pressed
into service to correct an omission which is intentional, however
erroneous that may be. It has been noticed that the courts below
have been liberally construing and applying the provisions of
Sections 151 and 152 of the Code even after passing of effective
orders in the lis pending before them. No court can, under the cover
of the aforesaid sections, modify, alter or add to the terms of its
original judgment, decree or order."
18. From the above discussion, it is quite clear that for a review on
merits there has to be a power under the Act. As noted above in the case
of Meena w/of Popat Mhaske and Anr. v. Manager, Bajaj Allianz General
Insurance Co. Ltd., Pune and Others (supra), the Motor Vehicles Act does
not provide for a power of review on merits to the Tribunal. A procedural
review is possible only where the error is palpable or order passed under a
misapprehension. Section 152 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 provides for
corrections for clerical and arithmetical mistakes arising from any
accidental slip or omission for corrections of its ministerial action but does
not contemplate passing of effective judicial orders on merit.
Nikita Gadgil 18 of 21
First Appeal (St) No. 22902 of 2021.doc
19. The reference to Section 169 of the Motor Vehicles Act by the
Respondents No. 1 and 2 also does not contain any reference to the power
of review of the Tribunal and does not assist the case of the Respondents
No.1 and 2 in any manner. Also the other decisions relied upon by the
learned Counsel for the Respondents do not assist the case of the
Respondents.
20. In the facts of the case what the Tribunal has done while
considering the Review Application, it has as applied the decision of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Radhakrishnan and Anr Vs. Gokul
and Others (supra), since the deceased was in the second year of
mechanical engineering at the time of his death and enhanced the
compensation amount to be awarded to the claimants. The enhancement
of compensation in this manner, more particularly since the judgment of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court was received by the Tribunal and marked as
"seen" by the Presiding Officer, cannot be said to be correcting a
procedural or palpably erroneous order passed under a misapprehension
or a clerical or an arithmetical mistake arising from any accidental slip or
omission but an order on merits and could not have been passed in the
absence of a specific power of review of the Tribunal. It is definitely
debatable as to whether the Tribunal considered the said judgment
Nikita Gadgil 19 of 21
First Appeal (St) No. 22902 of 2021.doc
inapplicable to the facts of the present case. The Tribunal in M.A.C.P.
(Review Application) No. 22 of 2015 has also not considered whether the
power of review of the Tribunal was only limited to inherent or implied in
a court or Tribunal to set aside a palpably erroneous order passed under a
misapprehension by it.
21. Even if the Claimants are entitled to the enhancement
pursuant to the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Radhakrishnan and Anr Vs. Gokul and Others (supra), in the absence of a
specific power of review on merits to the Tribunal, the proper course of
action would have been for the Respondents No.1 and 2 to have filed an
appeal against the Judgment and Award dated 2 nd January, 2015 passed
by the Tribunal in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.760 of 2012.
22. In the light of the above discussion, the Judgment and Award dated
10th December, 2019 passed in Review Application being M.A.C.P. (Review
Application) No. 22 of 2015 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Nashik is hereby set aside. The Appeal is allowed. Pending interim
applications accordingly stand disposed. No order as to costs.
Nikita Gadgil 20 of 21
First Appeal (St) No. 22902 of 2021.doc
23 However, the Respondents No.1 and 2 Claimants are at liberty to
file an appeal against the Judgment and Award dated 2 nd January, 2015
passed by the Tribunal in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.760 of 2012.
24. In case the Respondent Claimants file an appeal against the
Judgment and Award dated 2nd January, 2015 passed by the Tribunal in
Motor Accident Claim Petition No.760 of 2012, the Appellate Court may
consider the time period between the filing of the Review Application
before the Tribunal and the disposal of this Appeal while disposing of the
condonation of delay application that may be filed along with the First
Appeal that may be filed against the impugned order.
(ABHAY AHUJA, J.)
Nikita Gadgil 21 of 21
