Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


Rampati v. Buniyad & Others - WRIT - C No. - 55246 of 2007 [2007] RD-AH 17972 (16 November 2007)

This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).


Court No.21.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 55246 of 2007.

Rampati. Vs. Buniyad and others.

Connected with

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 29757 of 2007

Ram Pati. Vs. Buniyad and others.

Hon'ble Janardan Sahai, J.

These are two writ petitions. It appears that an award was given by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal against the petitioner who is owner of the vehicle. The petitioner filed a review application against the order, which was dismissed. The petitioner has filed Writ Petition No. 29757 of 2007 against that order. It appears that a recovery certificate was also issued against the petitioner for recovering the amount. The petitioner has challenged the recovery certificate also by way of Writ Petition No. 55246 of 2007.

The review application was filed on the ground that the vehicle was insured but the papers in proof of the insurance could not be filed. The tribunal has rejected the petitioner's application on the ground that the a review application is not maintainable. In 1999 T.A.C. 449 New India Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Bimla Devi a Division Bench of our court has taken the view that a review does not lie against the award. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that in certain circumstances the review application is maintainable and as the insurance papers could not be filed on account of mistake of the petitioner the review ought to have been allowed. He relied upon the decision of the Apex court in 2000 (2) T.A.C. 613 United India Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Rajendra Singh and others. The case cited is altogether distinguishable. In that case it was held that a tribunal or court is not powerless to recall its own order if it is convinced that the order was wrangled through fraud or misrepresentation of such a dimension as would affect the very basis of the claim. This is not a case of fraud or misrepresentation. It is conceded that no appeal has been filed against the award. The view taken by the tribunal appears to be correct. As the order of the tribunal rejecting the review is being upheld and no appeal has been filed against the award, there remains no ground and none has been pointed out for quashing the recovery. No ground for interference has been made out. Both the writ petitions are dismissed.




Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites


dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.