Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, parents of the deceased Hanumaiah, filed MVC No.1010/1998 before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Madhugiri under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming compensation of Rs.4,00,000 for the death of their son in a road traffic accident. The Tribunal allowed the claim petition on 19.07.2007 and awarded compensation of Rs.2,14,000. The first respondent insurance company subsequently filed Misc. No.20/2007 before the same Tribunal invoking Order XLVII Rule 1 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 seeking review of the judgment and award. The Tribunal entertained the review petition and on 10.09.2012 recalled its earlier judgment and award. Aggrieved, the petitioners approached the High Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying for a writ of certiorari to quash the review order. The core legal issue was whether a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal constituted under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 possesses the power to review its own judgment and award. The petitioners contended that the Act and the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 do not confer any power of review and that Rules 253 and 254 of the Rules do not make Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC applicable. They relied on Union of India v. Smt. Shamim, 2009 ACJ (4) 2785 and Uttara Soni v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., 2009 ACJ (1) 276. The respondents argued that the review petition was rightly entertained under Order XLVII Rule 1 read with Section 151 CPC. The High Court, after examining Chapter XII of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, found that neither Section 166 nor Section 173 nor any enabling provision provides for review. It noted that while Rule 254 of the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 adopts certain provisions of the CPC, Order XLVII Rule 1 is conspicuously absent. Relying on the decision in D.P. Sharma v. State Transport Authority, ILR 1987 KAR 3255, the court emphasized that the power of review is not inherent and must be expressly conferred by statute. The court further observed that once a statutory tribunal exercises its power and attains finality, it becomes irrevocable unless a review mechanism is specifically provided. Citing Naresh Kumar v. Government (NCT of Delhi), (2019) 9 SCC 416, the court distinguished between clerical correction and substantive review. It also invoked the principle in Kunwar Pal Singh v. State of U.P., (2007) 5 SCC 85 that where a statute prescribes a particular procedure, that procedure alone must be followed. Consequently, the High Court held that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to review its own award and the order dated 10.09.2012 was erroneous and without authority of law. The writ petition was allowed; the review order was set aside; and the original judgment and award dated 19.07.2007 was restored. The respondents were given liberty to pursue available remedies in accordance with law, and the period spent in the review and writ proceedings was excluded for the purpose of limitation. Parties were directed to bear their own costs.
Headnote
A) Motor Vehicles Law - Claims Tribunal - Power of Review - Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Sections 166, 173; Karnataka Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, Rules 253, 254 - The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal is a creature of statute and the governing Act and Rules do not confer any power of review on the Tribunal; Rule 254 of the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, which enumerates the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 applicable to the Tribunal, does not include Order XLVII Rule 1; therefore, the Tribunal cannot exercise review jurisdiction. Held that the Tribunal committed an error in entertaining the review petition and the order dated 10.09.2012 allowing the review is without jurisdiction and set aside. (Paras 7-9, 13) B) Administrative Law - Review - Inherent Power - There is no inherent power of review; the power must be conferred by statute either specifically or by necessary implication; once a statutory authority decides a matter affecting legal rights, its power is finally expended and the decision becomes irrevocable in the absence of an express review provision. Held that the distinction between powers of a continuing character and those finally expended reinforces that a tribunal cannot undo its final grant in the absence of statutory review power. (Para 10) C) Interpretation of Statutes - Specific Procedure - Compliance Mandated - Where a statute prescribes a particular manner for doing an act, that act must be done in that manner alone and not otherwise; the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 provides a complete code for adjudication of claims including a right of appeal under Section 173 but no review, and therefore the Tribunal cannot rely on Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC to review its own award. Held that compliance with statutory procedure is mandatory. (Paras 12)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal has the power to review its own judgment and award under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and the Karnataka Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989?
Final Decision
The writ petition is allowed. The order dated 10.09.2012 passed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Madhugiri in Misc. No.20/2007 is set aside as illegal and without jurisdiction. The judgment and award dated 19.07.2007 in MVC No.1010/1998 stands restored. Respondents are at liberty to pursue available legal remedies; the period during which the review and writ proceedings were pending shall be excluded for the purpose of limitation. Parties to bear their own costs.
Law Points
- Motor Accident Claims Tribunal has no power to review its own judgment and award
- power of review must be expressly conferred by statute
- review jurisdiction is not inherent and cannot be assumed under Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC in the absence of specific provision in the Motor Vehicles Act
- 1988 and Karnataka Motor Vehicles Rules
- 1989
- where a statute prescribes a particular manner for doing an act it must be done in that manner alone
- section 166 and 173 of the MV Act do not provide for review
- Rules 253 and 254 of Karnataka Motor Vehicles Rules
- 1989 do not incorporate Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC
- order passed in review without jurisdiction is void ab initio
