By means of this revision petition, the revisionist has prayed for setting aside order dated 17.09.2012, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Additional District Judge), Barabanki, in MACT Case no.91 of 2009.
Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and perused the record.
Brief facts of the case are that one Smt. Vijay Laxmi (opposite party no.1) filed the claim petition against the revisionist and opposite party no.4 and 5. The revisionist / insurance company filed written statement on 9.9.2011, which was prepared on 24.06.2011. The case proceeded by the Tribunal and evidence was concluded, arguments were heard and 24.08.2012 was fixed for delivery of judgment. The Insurance Company moved amendment application paper no.60-B for addition of plea regarding driving licence, which has been rejected by the learned Court below.
The amendment has been sought at a belated stage and no explanation for moving amendment application after such a long delay has been given by the revisionist. In view of this fact the learned Tribunal rightly observed that the amendment application has been moved with intention to delay the disposal of the case, which is malafide.
The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Pandurang Dhondi Chougule and others Vs. Maruti Hari Jadhav and others, reported in AIR 1966 SC, 153 has held as under:-
?.............It is well-settled that a plea of limitation or a plea of res judicata is a plea of law which concerns the jurisdiction of the Court, which tries the proceedings. A finding on these pleas in favour of the party raising them would oust the jurisdiction of the Court, and so, an erroneous decision on these pleas can be said to be concerned with questions of jurisdiction which fall within the purview of Section 115 of the Code. But an erroneous decision on a question of law reached by the subordinate Court which has no relation to questions of jurisdiction of that Court, cannot be corrected by the High Court under Section 115.?
This view has been reiterated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Prem Bakshi v. Dharam Deo, reported in AIR 2002 SC 559. Again in Gayatri Devi and others v. Shashi Pal Singh reported in 2005 (2) AWC 1072 (SC), it was held that revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure is not maintainable against an interim order.
In Shiv Shakti Co-op. Housing Society, Nagpur v. M/s Swaraj Developers and others, reported in AIR 2003 SC 2434, it was held:-
?It is fairly a well settled position in law that the right of appeal is a substantive right. But there is no such substantive right in making an application under S. 115. Section 115 is essentially a source of power for the High Court to supervise the subordinate courts. It does not in any way confer a right on a litigant aggrieved by any order of the subordinate court to approach the High Court for relief. The scope for making a revision under S. 115 is not linked with a substantive right.?
In view of the above, revision is not maintainable and deserves to be dismissed. However it is made clear that the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swaran Singh and others, (2004) 3 SCC 297 and in many other cases has repeatedly held that if the person driving a motor vehicle, at the time of accident, was not having a valid driving licence, the insurance company has to compensate the claimant, with a right to recover it from the owner.
In view of the settled law on the point, the learned Tribunal shall take into consideration while preparing the award and even when the execution is moved. This aspect can well be considered by the Tribunal at subsequent stages as mentioned hereinabove.
With these observations, revision petition is dismissed in limine.
Order Date :- 6.11.2012 Ram.