IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No. 542 of 2009 Date of decision: 19.7.2011 S.K.Chaudhary ….Petitioner. Versus Vishambri Devi and others ….Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Deepak Gupta, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the petitioner: Mr. Romesh Verma, Advocate. For the respondents No. 1 and 4: Ms. Meena Thakur vice Mr. Rahul Mahajan, Advocate. For the respondent No.7: Ms. Seema Sood, Advocate. _____________________________________________________________________ Deepak Gupta, J. (Oral) 1. By means of this petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 10.06.2009 passed by the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-II Una, for reviewing the award dated 27.08.2003 in so far as by the said award Shri Ram Kumar was held liable to pay the compensation. 2. It would be pertinent to mention that when the claim petition was filed, Ram Kumar was arrayed as one of the respondents. He was shown to be the owner of the vehicle. Thereafter, on 9.2.2001 an application was filed by the claimants praying that Shri Ram Kumar is not the 1 Whether the reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes. 2 true owner of the vehicle and in fact Shri S.K.Chaudhary is the true owner of the vehicle. This application was allowed and thereafter Shri S.K. Chaudhary put in appearance in the claim petition. In his reply to the claim petition as well as his statement on oath Shri S.K.Chaudhary admitted that he is the owner of the vehicle in question. When the final award was passed it appears that the fact that the claimants themselves claimed that Ram Kumar was no longer true owner was lost sight of by the learned trial Court and he was held liable to pay the compensation. 3. Thereafter, Ram Kumar filed CMPMO No. 151 of 2007 in this Court. The said CMPMO was withdrawn and he then filed FAO NO. 289 of 2007 alongwith an application for condonation of delay. This Court held that appropriate remedy for the claimants was to file a review petition before the learned Tribunal which had passed the award and point out the mistake therein. The FAO as well as the application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal were disposed of with the observation that it would be open to Ram Kumar to move the trial Court for review of its order. Thereafter, the application for review was filed which was allowed and hence this petition. 4. The main contention raised on behalf of the petitioner by Shri Romesh Verma, Advocate, is that the Motor Vehicles Act does not contain any provision allowing a 3 tribunal to review its earlier order. Any judicial authority has the inherent right to correct its orders which on the face of the record are erroneous. When judicial authorities are vested with the powers to decide matter and it is pointed out that there is some inherent mistake in the order then not only is the authority entitled to correct its order but in fact it owes a duty to the litigants to correct the orders. Even if there is no specific powers of review granted under a particular act, this is an inherent power which vested in the judicial authority. Such powers may not vest in any administrative or quasi judicial authority but an authority which is required to discharge judicial functions must have the inherent powers to correct its own orders which are erroneous on the face of the record. This is in consonance with the well settled principles of justice. If a Court makes a mistake, why should the litigant not have the right to approach the Court and tell the Presiding Officer that something which is totally erroneous has been stated in the order. A Division Bench of this Court in Civil Review No. 38 of 2009 titled as Satinder Kapoor vs. Commissioner of Central Excise and another decided on 23.12.2010 has already taken a similar view though that judgement is in the context of the superior Courts i.e. the High Court but there is no reason why the same principle should not apply to the Motor Accident Claims Tribunals. 4 5. As far as the merits are concerned, once the petitioner himself had admitted that he was the owner of the vehicle it would indeed be travesty of justice that the person who was not the true owner should be held liable to pay compensation. Therefore, I find no merit in the petition which is accordingly rejected. It is made clear that since the petitioner has now been made responsible to pay the compensation, he can file an appeal against the said award and while filing his appeal he can pray that the time spent in pursuing this application be deducted in terms of Section 14 of the Limitation Act. No costs. 19th July, 2011 (Deepak Gupta) ™ Judge.