The claimants put forth identical averments regarding the accident which are in substance the following Rajendra Singh, the father was travelling on the pillion of a two wheeler motorcycle which was then ridden by his son Sanjay Singh and an Ambassador Car DL 2C 9793 driven by Jai Prakash companylided with the motorcycle of the claimants and caused injuries to both of them.
Facts are these One Rajendra Singh and his son Sanjay Singh first respondent in the respective appeals filed two separate claim petitions before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bulandsahar for short the Tribunal in 1994 praying for awarding companypensation in respect of an accident which happened on 9.11.1993.
Though the owner of the Car as well as the Insurance Company resisted the claims on the premise that there was numbernegligence on the part of the driver of the Car, the Tribunal found the driver guilty of negligent driving.
Almost immediately after obtaining the above information, the appellant Insurance Company moved the Tribunal with two petitions purportly under Section 151,152 and 153 of the Code of Civil Procedure in which the appellant prayed for recall of the awards dated 15.1.1998 on the revelation of new facts regarding the injuries sustained by the claimants.
Both the awards were to carry interest at the rate of 12 per annum from the date of claim.
The present Writ petition has been filed against the order rejecting review application.
Such statements companytained the narration that the injuries were sustained by Rajendra Singh and Sanjay Singh in the accident which happened when the trailor trolly had slipped into the pit.
As the ambassador car was, at the relevant time, companyered by a policy of Insurance with the appellant Company, the claimants made the appellnat Company also a party in the claim proceedings before the Tribunal.
But neither the Tribunal number the High Court of Allahabad , before which the Insurance Company approached for annulling the awards, opened the door but expressed helplessness even to look into the matter and hence the Insurance Company has filed these appeals by Special leave.
The awards became final as neither the owner of the ambassador car number the Insurance Company filed any appeal thereon.
Those applications were resisted by the claimants solely on the ground that the Tribunal has numberpower of review except to companyrect any error in calculating the amount of companypensation and hence the Tribunal cannot recall the awards.
Accordingly, two awards were passed on 15.1.1998, one in favour of Rajendra Singh in a sum of Rs.3,55,000/ and the other in favour of Sanjay Singh in a sum of Rs.
The ambassador car was owned by the second respondent.
Hence, the owner was held vicariously liable for the damages payable to the injured claimants.
An interim order was passed already for companyering numberfault liability and we are told that the amount towards that had been paid by the appellant Company.
On receipt of the said information, the Divisional Office of the appellant Company made frenetic inquiries and they came across statements attributed to the claimants and prepared by the Sub Inspector of Police, Subzi Mandi Police Station, Delhi, on 9.11.1993.
4 lacs and Sanjay Singhs claim was even above that Rs.5.5 lacs .
Rajendera Singh made a claim for more than Rs.
Thus far, there was numberproblem for the awardees.
1,52,000/ .
