Utpalendu Bikas Saha ORDER
Utpalendu Bikas Saha, J.
1. The instant writ petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, for quashing the order dated 8-10-2007 passed by the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, (for short 'Claims Tribunal'), Court No. 2, West Tripura, Agartala in Case No. Civil Misc. 269 of 2006 whereby and whereunder the Claims Tribunal disallowed the prayer of the petitioner herein for review of the judgment and award dated 22-11-2006 passed in T.S. (MAC) No. 277/04 on the ground that the amendment of the judgment is not authorised under law.
2. Heard Mr. P. Chakraborty, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. D.R. Chowdhury, learned Counsel for the respondent No. 1 as well as Mr. P. Gautam, learned Counsel for the respondent No. 2, Divisional Manager, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.
3. In T. S. (MAC) No. 277 of 2004, the Claims Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs. 11,20,780/- in favour of the claimant-respondent No. 1 with interest @ 6% on and from the date of filing of the claim petition, i.e. 29-4-2004 as he sustained injuries on his person due to a vehicular accident, happened on 20-7-2003. The Claims Tribunal in its judgment and award held that the petitioner being the owner of the offending vehicle having no valid permit at the time of accident on 20-7-2003 is to effect payment of the aforesaid amount of compensation to the claimant-respondent No. 1. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and award, the petitioner herein preferred a review application under Order 47, Rule 1 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short "the Code") to accept the effective permit and review the judgment and award dated 22-11-2006, as due to bona fide mistake, the said effective permit could not be submitted by his engaged counsel at the time of hearing of the claim petition. Instead, his counsel submitted the permit that had already expired on 8-5-2004 along with all other relevant documents, as the engaged counsel could not follow the date of issue, i.e. on 16-2-2004 though the valid permit was there covering the period of accident, which was issued on 27-5-2003 and the date of expiry of which was on 29-9-2003.
4. The learned Claims Tribunal after hearing the parties disallowed the review application as stated supra. Hence the writ petition, for setting aside the impugned order dated 8-10-2007 and accepting the effective permit submitted by the petitioner for shifting the liability of payment of the awarded amount upon the respondent No. 2, being the offending vehicle was insured with the respondent No. 2, Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.
5. Mr. Chakraborty, learned Counsel for the petitioner would contend that though the provisions of review have not been incorporated in the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act') as has been provided under the Code, yet the learned Claims Tribunal has the power to review its own judgment and award, if it is satisfied that the judgment and award has been passed due to the mistake of the counsel of the petitioner and not for the mistake of the petitioner herein. He also contended that the power of review is implicit in every Court of civil nature even if the said power is not expressly provided under the statute like the Act. In support of his aforesaid contention he relied upon a decision of this Court in the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Samar Roy and Anr. reported in MANU/GH/0517/2002 : 2002 (2) GLT 595: (AIR 2003 (NOC) 106 : 2003 AIHC 3982). He further contends that the Apex Court in a recent decision in Sunita Devi Singhania Hospital Trust and Anr. v. Union of India and Anr. reported in AIR2009 SCW 1650 held that every Tribunal has inherent power to recall its order for the interest of justice.
6. Taking note of Sub-section (1) of Section 169 of the Act, he finally contended that in holding a........