Dilip Gupta, J.@mdashThe Petitioners have sought the quashing of the order dated 21st January, 2011 passed by the learned IInd Additional
District Judge, Gautam Budh Nagar by which the application filed by the Petitioners for review of the award dated 9th June, 2010 passed by the
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal has been rejected.
2. It transpires from the records of the writ petition that the Petitioners filed Claim Petition No. 246 of 2008 with the allegation that Mohd. Fazil
(son of claimant No. 1 and husband of claimant No. 2) met with an accident on 24th July, 2008 with a tempo and later on died. The Tribunal by its
judgment and order dated 9th June, 2010 made an award against the driver and owner of the tempo for Rs. 3,65,250/- with interest as the driver
of the tempo was not having a valid licence. It was observed that the Licensing Authority, on verification, found that the licence had not been issued
to the driver of the tempo. It is the case of the Petitioners that they subsequently learnt that the authorities had sought verification of a wrong
number from the Licensing Authority and, therefore, the report cannot be relied upon. The review application was, accordingly, filed. This
application was rejected by the Tribunal by the order dated 21st January, 2011.
3. Learned Counsel for the Petitioners submitted that the review application should have been allowed since the report was sought from the
Licensing Authority in respect of a different number and not with respect to the licence of the driver of the tempo with which the accident had
occurred. It is, therefore, his submission that an apparent error crept in award which was required to be rectified.
4. The contention of the learned Counsel for the Petitioners cannot be accepted. The Tribunal has observed that there is a vast difference between
the appellate power and the power to review of a judgment and in the present case, the award was passed on the basis of a report which had been
placed before it, There was, therefore, no error in the award which could have been made a ground for review of the order. It is not a case where
the Tribunal misread the report which had been placed before it. What is sought to be contended is that the report itself is wrong since it was
submitted in respect of a different driving licence number. This is an issue which should have been raised by the Petitioners before the award was
delivered and cannot be made a ground for review of the order. This order, however, shall not prevent the Petitioners from raising this issue in
appeal, if they are so advised.
5. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.