THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. SESHASAYANA REDDY CMA No.3544 of 2002 Date:2.12.2009 Between: Rangireddy Raviraju, Pithapuram, E.G District. And M/s.United India Insurance Company Limited, Rep by its Divisional Manger, Kakinada, E.G.District and another. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. SESHASAYANA REDDY CMA No.3544 of 2002 ORDER: 1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against the order dated 20.5.2002 passed in I.A.No.994 of 1997 in M.V.O.P.No.223 of 1995 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-IV Additional District Judge, East Godavari at Kakinada, whereby and whereunder the learned Chairman, Motor Claims Tribunal allowed the application filed by M/s.United India Insurance Company Limited under Order 47 Rule 1 and Section 151 CPC and reviewed the order dated 26.6.1997 passed in M.V.O.P.No.223 of 1995 and absolved the liability of the Insurance Company. 2. Background facts, in a nutshell, leading to filing of this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal under Order 43 Rule 1 CPC by the claimant in M.V.O.P.No.223 of 1995 are:- 3. The appellant is the claimant in M.V.O.P.No.223 of 1995. He filed the M.V.O.P. under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act read with Rule 455 of the Motor Vehicles Rules claiming compensation of Rs.50,000/- for the injuries sustained by him in a road accident occurred on 11.2.1995 due to negligent driving of the driver of the auto bearing No.A.P. 5 T 3898. In the claim petition, the owner-cum-driver and the insurer of the vehicle were impleaded as the respondent Nos.1 & 2. The owner- cum-driver namely Meesala Annavaram remained ex-parte and he did not choose to resist the application. The claimant examined himself as P.W.1 and whereas the Insurance Company marked the policy of the insurance of the vehicle as Ex.B1. The learned Tribunal, on considering the material brought on record and on hearing the counsel appearing for the parties, came to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the auto and that the claimant is entitled to compensation. The further finding is that Meesala Annavaram being the owner-cum-driver and M/s.United India Insurance Company being the insurer are liable to pay the compensation. Accordingly, an award came to be passed on 26.6.1997 making the owner-cum-driver namely Meesala Annavaram and the insurer M/s.United India Insurance Company of the crime vehicle liable to pay the compensation jointly and severally. Subsequently, the insurer filed I.A.No.994 of 1997 under Order 47 Rule 1 read with 151 CPC to review the order dated 26.6.1997 passed in M.V.O.P.No.223 of 1995 along with the delay condonation petition being I.A.No.867 of 1997. The delay condonation petition came to be allowed. Thereafter, the Tribunal took up the review petition being I.A.No.994 of 1997. The claimant filed counter resisting the review application. The learned Chairman of the Tribunal formulated the following points for consideration:- 1. Whether the review petition is barred by time? 2. Whether the petitioner could satisfy the essential ingredients of Order 47, Rule 1 CPC. 4. The learned Chairman of the Tribunal, on considering the material brought on record and on hearing the counsel for both the parties, held both the points in favour of the insurer and thereby proceeded to review the order dated 26.6.1997 passed in M.V.O.P.No.223 of 1995 and absolved the liability of the insurer to pay the compensation by order dated 20.5.2002. The said order is assailed in this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal. 5. Despite service of notice on the respondents, they did not choose to enter appearance. 6. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/claimant. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant/claimant submits that the Motor Vehicles Accidents Claims Tribunal is not empowered to review its own orders, since the provisions of Order 47 Rule 1 CPC are not made applicable to the proceedings before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal constituted under Section 165 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. A further submission has been made that neither Motor Vehicles Act nor the Rules framed thereunder empower the Tribunal to review its own orders and in the absence of any specific provision empowering the Tribunal to review its own order, the order impugned in this appeal is liable to be set aside. 8. The question that calls for adjudication is whether the Tribunal constituted under Section 165 of M.V.Act, 1988 is vested with the power of review. Section 165 of M.V.Act, 1988 deals with the constitution of the Tribunals by the State Government. Section 176 of the Act empowers the State Government to make Rules. Section 176 of the Act reds as under: “ 176 Power of State Government to make rules.- A State Government may make rules for the purpose of carrying into effect the provisions of section 165, section 166, section 167, section 168, section 169, section 170, section 171, section 172, section 173, section 174, and in particular, such rules may provide for all or any of the following matters, namely:- (a) the form of application for claims for compensation and the particulars it may contain, and the fees, if any, to be paid in respect of such applications; (b) the procedure to be followed by a Claims Tribunal in holding an inquiry under this Chapter; (c) the powers vested in a Civil Court which may be exercised by a Claims Tribunal; (d) the form and the manner in which and the fees (if any) on payment of which an appeal may be preferred against an award of a Claims, Tribunal; and (e) any other matter which is to be, or may be, prescribed.” The State Government framed the rules – A.P.Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989, which came into force from 1.9.1989. Under Rule 473 of the Rules, only certain provisions of CPC are made applicable to the proceedings before the Claims Tribunal. Rule 473 reads as under: “ 473. Code of Civil Procedure to apply in certain cases – The following provisions of the First Schedule to the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (Central Act 5 of 1908), shall so far as may be, apply to proceedings before the Claims Tribunal namely, Order V, Rules 9 to 13 and 15 to 30; Order IX, Order XIII, Rules 3 to 10; Order XVI, Rules 2 to 21; Order XVII and Order XXVII; Rules 1 to 3.” A plain reading of the above referred rule indicates that Order 47 which deals with review powers of the civil code is excluded from its application to the tribunals constituted u/s 165 of M.V.Act, 1988. There is no provision made in the Act or rules specifically applying the other provisions of CPC to the Tribunals constituted under Section 176 of the Motor Vehicles Act. I n PATEL NARSHI THAKERSHI VS. PRADYUMANSINGHJI ARJUNSINGHJI, the Supreme Court has held that the power to review is not an inherent power it must be conferred by law either specifically or by necessary implication. There is no provision in the M.V.Act from which it can be gathered that Tribunals under the Act can review their own orders. When there is no power of review the order impugned in the appeal passed by the Motor Vehicles Tribunal, on an application filed under Order 47 Rule 1 r/w 151 CPC, cannot be sustained. 10. Accordingly, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed setting aside the order impugned in this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal and consequently I.A.No.944 of 1997 in M.V.O.P.No.223 of 1995 stands dismissed. ____________________________ JUSTICE B. SESHASAYANA REDDY Date:2.12.2009 Mrb/tnb