JUDGMENT
Syed Bashir-Ud-Din, J.
1. Petitioner is the owner of Motor Vehicle (Auto Rikshaw) involved in the vehicular accident that took place on 5.5.2001 causing death of one Abdul Rashid Bhat, who’s wife and minor son and daughter, filed a claim petition before MACT at Srinagar. During the pendency of proceedings interim relief of Rs. 50,000/-, on the basis of no fault liability, was awarded to the claimants by the Tribunal vide its order dated 1.9.2003. In the order, the liability to pay the interim relief was fixed on New India Assurance Co. Ltd., the answering respondent to the claim petition. However, the Insurance Co. sought correction of the order in as much as the no fault liability was mistakenly and erroneously fixed on the Insurance Co. when there was no basic contract of insurance between the Insurance Co. and the vehicle owner.
2. The Tribunal, after hearing counsel for the parties, corrected the order to fix the liability for interim compensation on answering respondent No. 3, the owner of the vehicle, the revision petitioner before this Court, by order dated 9.10.2003. This order is impugned in this revision petition on the ground that Tribunal had no jurisdiction to pass such an order and the direction suffers from non application of mind and further there is no provision of review where under the Tribunal could have passed such an order.
3. Heard. It is seen from the annexures to the revision petition that what the Tribunal has done is that it has posted liability of interim maintenance on the owner of the vehicle and let off the Insurance Co., on the premise that there is no contract between the insured and the insurer and in absence of basic insurance contract to cover the liability, the Insurance Co. cannot be held liable to indemnify the claimants. The Tribunal has expressly stated in the order that fixing up the liability of the amount on the insured was on the mistaken view of the matter construing Proposal Form of the Co. as Insurance policy/contract interse the parties on the material date. Obviously, the Tribunal has not changed the basis of the order of the judgment, but what it has done is that it has placed the liability on the owner of the vehicle to correct the error/mistake in the order and the Tribunal, or for that matter courts, cannot be said to lack jurisdiction to correct the fundamental error in the order. The mistake is admittedly a justifiable reason to correct/recall an order notwithstanding the finality which may be given to the order.
4. The Ld. Counsel for the petitioner refers to Patel Narshi Thakershi and Ors v. Pradyumansinghji Arjunsinghji, (AIR 1970 SC 1273) for the proposition that powers to review is to be conferred by law otherwise, the power cannot be exercised. However, this authority is not attracted, to the facts and circumstances of this case. By the impugned order, mistake is corrected and not the basic order is reviewed. There is no bar to correct the mistakes and errors committed by courts/Tribunals in discharge of their judicial/quasi judicial duties. The other authority cited, Kumaran Vaidyar and Ors. v. K.S. Venkiteswaran and Ors., (AIR 1992 Kerala 26) of a Ld. Single Judge, equally does not cover issue thrown up the order impugned in the revision petition before this Court. The power of the Tribunal, for that matter, is of a civil court to correct errors and mistakes which it may commit during the course of the proceedings. Errors/mistakes apparent on record are amenable to correction by the Tribunal/court. By correction and removal of the mistake/error/error committed, in this case, substantive rights of the parties are not effected.
5. As a matter of expediency of justice, the following quote from S. Nagraj v. State of Karnataka, JT 1998(5) SC 27 is apt to cover the mistake corrected by the Tribunal of its order:-
“Justice is a virtue which transcends all barriers neither the rules of procedure nor technicalities of law can stand in its way. The order of the Court should not be prejudicial to any one, Even the law bends before justice, if the court finds that the order was passed under a mistake and it would not have exercised the jurisdiction but for the erroneous assumption which in fact did not exist and it perpetration shall result in miscarriage of justice then it cannot on any principle be precluded from rectifying the error. Mistake is accepted as a valid reason to recall an order. Differences lies in the nature of mistake and scope of rectification. Depending on it is of fact or law. But the root from which power flows is the anxiety to avoid injustice. It is either statutory or inherent. The latter is available, where the mistake is of the court.”
The revision petition is dismissed.
