CRP/513/2001 of NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD Vs R.V.DAS on 19 December 2003

1. R.V.Das2.P.Arumugam3.A.Shanmugam4.A.Murugan5.Karunagaran6.A.Radha7.A.Saradha8.A.Gomathi9.V.Rajesh ... Respondents This civil revision petition is filed under Article 227 of theConstitution of India praying for the relief as stated below.

For petitioner : Mr.N.VijayaraghavanFor respondent1: Mr.M.Chidambaram For respondents 3-8:Mr.S.Subbiah :O R D E RThis Civil Revision Petition has been filed under Article 227of the Constitution of India, against the orders made in I.A.No. 153 of 19 98in M.C.O.P.No. 7 of 1998 dated 28-06-2000 on the file of Motor AccidentsClaims Tribunal, Additional District Court, Nagerkoil.

2. Today, when the above matter was taken up forconsideration, on a perusal of the materials placed on record and upon hearingthe learned counsel for both, what comes to be known is that the respondents 2to 8 herein, as petitioners have filed a petition in M.C.O.P.No. 7 of 1998 onthe file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Additional District Court, Nagerkoil, praying to award a compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- with interest at12% from the date of accident, till the date of realization, with costs. TheM.A.C.T. passed an award for Rs.69,500/- to the petitioners towardscompensation with interest at 12% per annum from the date of petition till thedate of realization with proportionate costs. The respondents 1 and 2, whoare the driver and owner respectively of the vehicle are jointly and severallyliable to pay the aforesaid compensation to the petitioners. As per the aboveaward, first petitioner would be entitled to Rs.39,500/- and petitioners 2 to7 would be entitled to Rs.5,000/- each. The petition against the thirdrespondent, which is the Insurance Company is dismissed, without costs.

3. The second respondent in the M.C.O.P., who is the owner of the vehicle filed a Review Application in I.A.No. 153 of 1998praying to review the order dated 22-9-1998 in the M.C.O.P.No. 7 of 1998, byexonarating him from paying any compensation amount and fastening theliability on the Insurance Company, the third respondent in M.C.O.P. forpayment of the compensation amount awarded in the claim petition. TheAdditional District Judge, Nagercoil, allowed the said I.A. holding that therespondents in M.C.O.P. are jointly and severally liable to pay thecompensation amount and it is only testifying the validity of the said orderthe ninth respondent in the Review Application I.A.No. 153 of 1998, aspetitioner has come forward to file the above Civil Revision Petition prayingto invoke the powers conferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner herein would cite two judgments, of which, in the first one rendered by the Supreme Courtin RAJENDRA KUMAR AND OTHERS Vs. RAMBHAI AND OTHERS, reported in 2002 ACJ1822, wherein it is held by their Lordships:

"On perusal of the order under challenge it is clear that the High Courtwithout considering the question whether the judgment/order sought to bereviewed suffered from any error, entered upon the exercise of reappreciatingthe evidence and on such reappreciation of evidence redetermined thecompensation by reducing the amount to the extent noted earlier".

The second judgment rendered in KUMAR (MINOR) Vs. NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD.,reported in 2002-4-L.W. 691, wherein it is held by a Division Bench of thisCourt :

"The driving licence which the driver is required to hold when the motorvehicle is used in a public place is the licence to drive the particular typeof vehicle and not merely the licence to drive any other type of vehicle. Theclassification of vehicles in the Act is such that though the heavy passengervehicle as also the heavy goods vehicle are transport vehicles, neverthelessthey form distinct categories and the licence which a person intending todrive these vehicles is required to obtain is a license issued with referenceto the particular class of vehicle. A licence issued which permits thedriving of a heavy passenger vehicle is not a licence issued for the purposeof driving a heavy goods vehicle. Even though it may appear that a person,who knows how to operate the controls of a heavy motor vehicle and has beendriving a heavy vehicle which carries passengers, would have the necessary skill to drive a heavy goods vehicle, the driving of the heavy goods vehicleby a person who does not possess a licence which enables him to drive thattype of vehicle would be a breach of Section 3 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Forthe purposes of the Act, such a person cannot be regarded as one who had thevalid or effective Driving Licence.

The learned counsel would submit that since the first respondent herein, whois the owner of the vehicle does not possess a valid licence, he is liable topay the compensation amount and hence, would pray to allow the revisionpetition.

5. On the contrary, on the part of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, particularly the first respondentwould sail along with the order passed by the lower Court in ReviewApplication in I.A. No. 153 of 1998 dated 28-06-2000, wherein on anelaborate consideration of the questions involved for the purpose of review,the trial Court would ultimately arrive at the conclusion to allow the saidReview Application and would review its own order to the effect that therespondents 1 to 3 therein are responsible jointly and severally to pay thecompensation amount granted in favour of the petitioners in M.C.O.P.No. 7 of1998, as per its order dated 22-09-1998.

6. The Insurance Company, the petitioner in the above Civil Revision Petition and ninth respondent in the Review Application andthird respondent in the main M.C.O.P. has filed the above Civil RevisionPetition on grounds such as that the lower Court ought not to have allowed theReview Application; that the lower Court has virtually sit on Appeal indeciding Review application in I.A.No. 153 of 1998 against its own judgment,which is impermissible in law; that the lower Court has mechanically allowedthe Review Application; that the lower Court ought to have seen that theproper remedy for the first respondent lay only on Appeal against the awardmade in M.C.O.P.No. 7 of 1998 dated 22-9-1998. On such grounds, thepetitioner/the Insurance Company in the above Civil Revision Petition has comeforward to file the same seeking to set aside the order passed by the lowerCourt in review as unsustainable in law.

7. In consideration of the facts pleaded, having regard

7. In consideration of the facts pleaded, having regard to the materials placed on record and upon hearing the learned counsel forboth, particularly in application of the norms of law as propounded bypropositions broughtforth on the part of the petitioner in the reportedjudgments cited supra, this Court is able to find that it is an order that hasbeen passed by the lower Court, i.e., the trial Court on a review of its ownjudgment passed in M.C.O.P.No. 7 of 1998 dated 22-0 9-1998 at the request ofthe petitioner therein, who was the owner of the vehicle against whom theaward had been passed resulting in the first respondent herein, the said ownerhaving taken out the Review Application before the lower Court seeking therelief of requiring the Insurance Company as the responsible party to pay theaward passed by the lower Court in favour of the petitioners in the M.C.O.P.and the Review Court having conducted an enquiry has passed its orderrequiring the respondents 1 to 3 in the M.C.O.P. be responsible to pay theaward amount in the ratio held in the M.C.O.P. award and it is aggrieved against the said order, the Insurance Company has come forward to file theabove Civil Revision Petition.

8. Either the pleadings or the judgment cited on the part of the petitioner against the review order passed by the lower Court isapplicable to the case in hand in the sense that it is not the facts or themerits regarding the application of the norms of law or the evidence in thecontext of the facts and circumstances of the case that has been eitherdiscussed or appreciated, muchless in evidence, but only to the extent that itis required to review its own order in determining those parties, who areresponsible for paying the award of compensation passed and therefore, thelower Court having found some error apparent has occurred on the face of itsown order in requiring the parties to pay the award amount, has ultimatelycome forward to rectify the error and it is not amounting either toreappraisal or reappreciation of the evidence and therefore, this Court doesnot find anything has gone wrong legally with the order passed by the lowerCourt in the Review Application in I.A.No. 153 of 1998 on its file in M.C.O.P.No. 7 of 1998 and therefore, it is only desirable on the part of thisCourt to exercise no interference into the merited order passed by the lowerCourt in reviewing its own order made in M.C.O.P.No. 7 of 19 98, as per itsorder dated 22-09-1998 and hence, the following order.

In result,

i.the above Civil Revision Petition does not merit acceptance and only becomesliable to be dismissed and the same is dismissed accordingly;

ii.the order dated 28-06-2000 made in I.A.No. 153 of 1998 in M.C.O.P.No. 7of 1998 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Additional District Court,Nagerkoil, is confirmed;

iii. there shall be no order as to costs.

Index: YesInternet: Yes

paa

To

The Additional District Judge,M.A.C.T., Nagerkoil.