Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal Can Review Its Order If Obtained Through Fraud Or Misrepresentation: Rajasthan High Court

Rajasthan High Court has ruled that even though a Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (“the Tribunal”) does not have the power to review its own order under CPC if it is convinced that an order passed by it was obtained through fraud or misrepresentation, it is empowered to recall the order via a review of that order.

A bench of Justice Rekha Borana was hearing a petition against an order of the tribunal wherein a review application of its order was allowed by the Tribunal setting aside that order and directing a fresh hearing of the matter. The Tribunal had passed an order in favour of the claimants (petitioners here) which was set aside in the review application filed by the insurance company (respondents).

The counsel for the petitioners argued that it was a settled position of law that a tribunal did not have power to review its own order and hence, the impugned order was in excess of jurisdiction, deserving to be set aside.

On the contrary, the counsel for the respondent argued that the insurance policy that was relied upon by the petitioner to obtain the favourable order by the Tribunal was a forged document and hence the award in question was obtained by playing a fraud on the Tribunal. Hence, the Tribunal rightly quashed the award in the review application.

The Court partially agreed with the argument put forth by the counsel for the petitioner to the extent that the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal generally did not have the jurisdiction to deal with a review application under CPC, however, the Court observed that there were certain exceptions to this position of law.

The Court highlighted the Tribunal's reference to the Supreme Court case of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Rajendra Singh & Ors. in which it was held that no court or tribunal could be regarded as powerless to recall its own order if it was convinced that the order was obtained through fraud or misrepresentation since fraud and justice could not dwell together.

Furthermore, the Tribunal had also referred to the Apex Court case of A.V. Papayya Sastry and Ors. Vs. Government of A.P. and Ors. in which it was ruled that,

“An order obtained by practising or playing fraud cannot be held legal, valid or in consonance with law. It is non existent, non est and cannot be allowed to stand. The Court further observed that the said is a fundamental principle of law and hence, held that a judgment, decree or order obtained by fraud is to be treated as nullity, whether by the Court of first instance or by the final Court.”

Affirming the reasoning adopted by the Tribunal to set aside its order, the Court opined that it was a settled position of law that a decree/award could be set aside at any stage even in collateral proceedings if found to be obtained by fraud.

Accordingly, no interference was deemed fit in the impugned order and the petition was dismissed.

Title: Abhilash v the New India Insurance Company Ltd.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 265

Click Here To Read/Download Order