Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Attorney(S)
  • B.S.Mann
  • Arun Birbal
Judges
  • Pradeep Nandrajog, J.
Acts
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Click here to upload
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Attorney(S)
  • B.S.Mann
  • Arun Birbal
Judges
  • Pradeep Nandrajog, J.
Acts
See more information ...
Smart Summary

Structured Summary of the Opinion (Pradeep Nandrajog, J.)

Factual and Procedural Background

On 20.11.1984 Krishan Kumar Bansal died at age 45 as a result of injuries sustained in a road accident involving jeep No. DED 7749. He was survived by his wife, two sons and his father. Dependants filed a claim under section 110-A read with section 92-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, seeking Rs. 15,50,000 as compensation.

The Claims Tribunal found the driver guilty of rash and negligent driving and, by an award dated 23.8.1989, awarded Rs. 3,00,000 to the dependants. The appellant (D.D.A) challenged that award by preferring F.A.O. No. 30 of 1990. The dependants filed cross-objections (CM. No. 2116 of 1990). While those appeals were pending, the dependants sought a review from the Tribunal; the Tribunal allowed the review by order dated 9.4.1991 and enhanced the award to Rs. 5,84,000. The D.D.A. then preferred another appeal (F.A.O. No. 16 of 1992) challenging the review order dated 9.4.1991. The consolidated litigation therefore concerned primarily the quantum of compensation and the propriety of the review order.

Legal Issues Presented

  1. Whether the Claims Tribunal was justified in determining the deceased's annual income on the basis of the income tax return (Exh. PW 5/4) filed after the deceased's death and covering the period 1.9.1984 to 20.11.1984.
  2. Whether assessment orders and the income tax return (Exhs. PW 5/1, PW 5/2, PW 5/3, PW 5/4) relied upon by the dependants are admissible and reliable for fixing the deceased's income.
  3. Whether it was proved that the deceased was a Director of C.K. Exporters Pvt. Ltd. and received a monthly remuneration of Rs. 3,500.
  4. Whether the deceased was a partner in the firms Gopi Nath & Sons and Shibban Lal Gopi Nath with a 30% share in each, and if so, what his annual earnings from those firms were.
  5. What methodology and multiplier should be applied to compute loss of dependency (including whether to apply the "normal rule" or a different approach where capital asset income is involved).
  6. Whether the Tribunal had jurisdiction/power to entertain and allow a review petition under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and if not, whether the review order dated 9.4.1991 is vitiated.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant (D.D.A) — Primary Contentions

  • Challenged the original award dated 23.8.1989 and subsequently challenged the Tribunal's review order dated 9.4.1991 by preferring F.A.O. No. 16 of 1992.
  • Contended that the income tax return Exh. PW 5/4 was filed nearly two years after the death and related to a short period (2 months 20 days) prior to death, giving rise to a strong inference that it was filed to show exaggerated income to claim higher compensation.

Respondents (Dependants) — Primary Contentions

  • Relied upon witnesses and documentary exhibits (including partnership deeds, assessment orders, salary certificate Exh. PW 1/1, and income tax return Exh. PW 5/4) in proof of the deceased's earnings and status.
  • Counsel for respondents argued that the witnesses were not cross-examined on the issue of creation of the income tax return, and therefore their statements remained unrebutted; thus the Tribunal was justified in relying on Exh. PW 5/4.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent Rule or Principle Cited For Application by the Court
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Charlie, 2005 ACJ 1131 (SC) That the normal rule of determination of loss of dependency is not strictly applicable to cases where capital asset is the income of the deceased. The Court invoked this principle to reject the cross-objections seeking enhancement of compensation, holding that no ground for enhancement existed in the present factual matrix.
Patel Narshi Thakershi v. Pradyumansinghji Arjun-singhji, (1971) 3 SCC 844 : AIR 1970 SC 1273 The power to review is not an inherent power; it must be conferred by law specifically or by necessary implication. The Court applied this rule to hold that the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 does not confer power to review on a Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal; consequently the Tribunal was not justified in allowing the dependants' review and passing the 9.4.1991 order.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court proceeded by addressing discrete factual and legal questions in sequence, focusing only on matters relevant to the quantum of compensation:

  1. Reliability of Exh. PW 5/4 (income tax return):
    • The return covered only the period 1.9.1984 to 20.11.1984 (2 months 20 days).
    • The return was filed on 27.1.1987 — nearly two years after the death (20.11.1984) — and the deceased had not filed returns during his lifetime.
    • These circumstances led to a strong inference that the return was filed posthumously to show an inflated income for obtaining higher compensation; the document was, therefore, inherently suspicious.
    • The Court held that lack of cross-examination of witnesses did not remove or cure the inherent suspicious nature of Exh. PW 5/4.
    • Conclusion: the income of the deceased could not be determined on the basis of Exh. PW 5/4; assessment order Exh. PW 5/3, which was premised on Exh. PW 5/4, was likewise unreliable.
  2. Claim of directorship and salary from C.K. Exporters Pvt. Ltd.:
    • The claim was that the deceased was appointed a Director in August 1984 (three months prior to death), and the company is a private limited company.
    • No Form No. 32 (statutory filing under section 303(2) of the Companies Act, 1956) evidencing appointment as Director was placed on record.
    • Although a salary certificate (Exh. PW 1/1) showed remuneration credited, alleged salary entries for October and November 1984 were credited to the deceased's loan account.
    • No TDS certificate was produced though witnesses stated TDS of Rs. 550 had been deducted.
    • There was no evidence to show the company to be a family concern or to explain appointment without shareholding or pecuniary interest.
    • Conclusion: it was not proved that the deceased was a Director or that he received Rs. 3,500 per month from the company.
  3. Partnership status and earnings from the two firms:
    • Partnership deeds (Exhs. PW 6/1, PW 6/2) — though photocopies — established that the deceased was a partner with 30% share in each firm (Gopi Nath & Sons and Shibban Lal Gopi Nath).
    • For Gopi Nath & Sons, assessment order Exh. PW 5/2 showed annual firm profit Rs. 27,170 for assessment year 1984-85, with the deceased's share Rs. 6,832. This assessment order was based on a return filed prior to the death and was accepted by the Court.
    • For Shibban Lal Gopi Nath, assessment order Exh. PW 5/1 showed firm income Rs. 92,320 and the deceased's share Rs. 24,708; however, that assessment relied on a return filed after death and no prior return filed during the deceased's lifetime was placed on record.
    • The partnership firm Shibban Lal Gopi Nath had existed since 1963; the absence of any return filed prior to death suggested that earlier profits might have been below taxable threshold.
    • For assessment year 1984-85, income up to Rs. 15,000 per annum was non-taxable. On this basis, and given the absence of pre-death returns, the Court fixed the firm's annual income at Rs. 15,000 and the deceased's 30% share at Rs. 4,500.
    • Conclusion: annual income attributable to the deceased from both firms aggregated to Rs. 11,332 (Rs. 6,832 + Rs. 4,500).
  4. Overall annual income, projection and deduction:
    • Considering expected growth in earnings (the Court referred to the pattern of minimum wages increasing substantially over decades and reasoned that the deceased's earnings could reasonably be expected to double by the time he would have stopped earning), a mean average annual income was calculated at Rs. 16,998.
    • The Court then deducted one-third towards personal expenses, yielding an annual loss of dependency of Rs. 11,332.
  5. Multiplier and final computation:
    • The Tribunal had applied a multiplier of 15 for a 45-year-old deceased. The Court considered that multiplier on the higher side and adopted a multiplier of 11.
    • Applying multiplier 11 to annual loss of dependency Rs. 11,332 produced total loss of dependency Rs. 1,24,652.
    • The Tribunal had earlier awarded Rs. 3,00,000 for loss of dependency; the Court reduced that by Rs. 1,75,348 to conform to its computation.
  6. Review power and validity of the 9.4.1991 order:
    • The Court observed settled law that the power to review is not inherent and must be conferred by law (citing Patel Narshi Thakershi).
    • The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 does not confer power to review on a Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal; thus the Tribunal was not justified in allowing the dependants' review and passing the order dated 9.4.1991.
    • Additionally, because the original award dated 23.8.1989 was legally unsustainable for the reasons above, the modification produced by the 9.4.1991 order also became null and void.

Holding and Implications

Holding:

  • F.A.O. No. 16 of 1992 (appeal challenging review order dated 9.4.1991) is allowed, and the review order/award dated 9.4.1991 is set aside.
  • F.A.O. No. 30 of 1990 is allowed in part: the original award dated 23.8.1989 is modified by reducing the compensation awarded under the head "loss of dependency" by Rs. 1,75,348 (from Rs. 3,00,000 down to Rs. 1,24,652 as computed by the Court); F.A.O. No. 30 is disposed of accordingly.
  • CM. No. 2116 of 1990 (cross-objections seeking enhancement) is dismissed.
  • No costs were awarded.
  • Overall result stated in the opinion: "Appeals allowed."

Implications

Direct consequences for the parties:

  • The dependants' enhanced award (by virtue of the Tribunal's 9.4.1991 review) is vacated; the award for loss of dependency is reduced by Rs. 1,75,348 based on the Court's reassessment of reliable income evidence and appropriate multiplier.
  • The dependants' cross-objection for further enhancement fails and is dismissed.
  • The findings reject reliance on documents filed after death that are inherently suspicious and emphasize the need for contemporaneous documentary proof (e.g., pre-death returns, statutory filings such as Form 32, TDS certificates) before enhancing compensation based on purported higher income.

Broader legal consequences: The opinion applies existing precedents (including on review power and treatment of capital-asset related income) to the facts; the Court did not purport to lay down a new precedent beyond the application of those settled principles.

Show full summary ...

    Delhi Development Authority v. Rukmani Bansal And Others

    Pradeep Nandrajog, J.:— On 20.11.1984, deceased Krishan Kumar Bansal, aged 45 years received fatal injuries in a road accident involving jeep bearing No. DED 7749. He died. He was survived by his wife, 2 sons and father.

    2. Dependants filed a claim application under section 110-A read with section 92-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, claiming a compensation of Rs. 15,50,000 on account of death of the deceased in the said road accident.

    3. After holding driver of the offending vehicle guilty of rash and negligent driving, vide award dated 23.8.1989, Claims Tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs. 3,00,000 to the dependants.

    4. Aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said award, the appellant-D.D.A preferred an appeal registered as F.A.O No. 30 of 1990.

    5. Respondents in the said appeal (dependants before the Tribunal) filed cross-objection, i.e, CM. No. 2116 of 1990.

    6. While the, said appeal and the cross-objections were pending decision, dependants moved a review petition before the learned Tribunal.

    7. Vide order dated 9.4.1991, the review petition was allowed and the award dated 23.8.1989 was modified by enhancing the compensation amount from Rs. 3,00,000 to Rs. 5,84,000.

    8. D.D.A had preferred another appeal challenging the order dated 9.4.1991 The appeal was registered as F.A.O No. 16 of 1992.

    9. The issue involved in both appeals as also cross-objections relates to quantum of compensation, therefore, I shall only be noting only such facts and evidence as are relevant for adjudication of said issue.

    10. In the claim petition, earnings of the deceased was stated as Rs. 6,000 per month. It was stated that the deceased was partner in two firms, viz., Gopi Nath & Sons and Shibban Lal Gopi Nath and was having 30 per cent share in each firm. It was further stated that deceased was also a Director in C.K Exporters Pvt. Ltd. and was getting Rs. 3,500 per month as remuneration out of which a sum of Rs. 550 was deducted as tax at source.

    11. In support of the averments made in the claim petition pertaining to earnings of the deceased, dependants examined 4 witnesses, viz., A.K Gupta, PW 1; Diwan Chand, PW 5; Gopi Nath, PW 6 and Ruk-mani Bansal, PW 8.

    12. Gopi Nath, the father and Rukmani Bansal, the wife of the deceased in their testimony as PW 6 and PW 8 respectively reiterated the averments made in the claim petition.

    13. A.K Gupta, Director in C.K Exporters Pvt. Ltd. stepped into the witness-box as PW 1 and deposed that there were 4 Directors in C.K Exporters Pvt. Ltd. and deceased, K.K Bansal was one of them. He further deposed that all 4 Directors including the deceased were getting fixed remuneration of Rs. 3,500 per month. He also proved the salary certificate of the deceased as Exh. PW 1/1.

    14. Diwan Chand, accountant in Shibban Lal Gopi Nath stepped into witness-box as PW 5 and supported the averments made in the claim application as also the testimonies of other witnesses.

    15. In order to prove the earnings of the deceased, 3 assessment orders, viz., Exhs. PW 5/1, PW 5/2 and PW 5/3 and an income tax return, Exh. PW 5/4, were placed on record.

    16. Further, in order to establish that deceased was a partner in afore-noted two firms and was having 30 per cent share in each of the firms, partnership deeds, Exh. PW 6/1 and Exh. PW 6/2, were placed on record (the partnership deeds so filed are photocopied documents).

    17. After appreciating afore-noted documents, learned Tribunal has taken income of Rs. 29,404 shown in the income tax return, Exh. PW 5/4 as the annual income of the deceased (I note that no deduction towards income tax has been made by the Tribunal) deducting Rs. 9,404 for personal spending of the deceased (nearly 30 per cent of the income), annual loss of dependency has been calculated at Rs. 20,000. Applying multiplier of 15, total loss of dependency was determined at Rs. 3,00,000.

    18. In the review petition, it was contended that the learned Tribunal erred in taking income shown in the income tax return, Exh. PW 5/4, as annual income of the deceased for the reason said income tax return related to a period of 2 months and 20 days only.

    19. Tribunal concurred with the said contention advanced by the appellant. Taking Rs. 31,540 as the annual income of the deceased from the two firms on the basis of income tax returns, Exh. PW 5/1 and Exh. PW 5/2 and Rs. 42,000 as the salary of the deceased from C.K Exporters Pvt. Ltd., the Tribunal has determined the total income of the deceased as Rs. 73,540. Deducting Rs. 17,000 towards income tax, net annual income of the deceased is determined as Rs. 56,540. Deducting Rs. 20,000 towards personal expenses of the deceased, Tribunal has determined loss of dependency at Rs. 36,540. Applying multiplier of 15, the total loss of dependency has been determined at Rs. 5,48,000. Thus, award dated 23.8.1989 has been modified by enhancing the compensation by a sum of Rs. 2,48,000.

    20. The controversy in the instant case centres around appreciation of afore-noted assessment orders, Exhs. PW 5/1, PW 5/2 and PW 5/3 and income tax return, Exh. PW 5/4.

    21. Before proceeding with the compensation assessed, I note following observations made by the learned Tribunal:

    “From the perusal of the income tax return, Exh. PW 5/4, it can be seen that prior to 1.9.1984, deceased was not having taxable income. Had there been any taxable income of the deceased prior to 1.9.1984, he would have filed income tax returns of the firm even for that period. Similarly, income tax returns of the firm of K.K Bansal and Gopi Nath, tax returns filed with income tax authority is for Rs. 29,400 for the year 1986-87 and returns for the year 1984-85 shows income of the deceased as Rs. 92,320.”

    22. Notwithstanding above observations, the learned Tribunal has determined annual income of the deceased on the basis of income tax return, Exh. PW 5/4.

    23. First question that arises is whether the Tribunal was right in determining the annual income of the deceased on the basis of income tax return, Exh. PW 5/4.

    24. The income tax return, Exh. PW 5/4 shows the income of the deceased for a period from 1.9.1984 to 20.11.1984, i.e, 2 months 20 days.

    25. It is an admitted fact that the income tax return, Exh. PW 5/4 was filed on 27.1.1987, i.e, nearly 2 years after the death of the deceased in the said accident.

    26. During his lifetime, the deceased did not file any income tax return. The fact that said return was filed after 2 years of the death of the deceased leads to a strong inference that said income tax return was filed to show an exaggerated income of the deceased in order to get more compensation.

    27. According to the income tax return, Exh. PW 5/4, the earnings of the deceased consisted of following four components:

    (i) Remuneration of Rs. 3,500 from C.K Exporters Pvt. Ltd.

    (ii) 30 per cent share of profits from Gopi Nath & Sons.

    (iii) 30 per cent share of profits from Shibban Lal Gopi Nath.

    (iv) Income from house property.

    28. According to the dependants, earnings of the deceased consisted of first 3 components. No witness has stated a word about the income of the deceased from any property. Assuming there was some income from house property, since the asset remained, so did the income therefrom.

    29. The income tax return, Exh. PW 5/4 shows the earnings of the deceased for a period of 2 months 20 days as Rs. 29,400. Meaning thereby, deceased was earning approximately Rs. 10,000 per month. In the claim petition,’ it was stated that deceased was earning Rs. 6,000 per month. There is a clear contradiction between the averments made in the claim petition and the income tax return, Exh. PW 5/4. Further the period of the return, i.e, 1.9.1984 to 20.11.1984 makes it a highly suspicious document. It means that for the period prior to 31.8.1984, during his lifetime, the deceased had no taxable income. Deceased died on 20.11.1984 It was thus profitable to create evidence of income for a period of about 3 months prior thereto.

    30. These surrounding circumstances render income tax return, Exh. PW 5/4, an inherently suspicious document.

    31. The learned counsel for the respondents contended that the witnesses of the respondents were not subjected to any cross-examination on the issue. Counsel urged that no suggestion was given to them that income tax return, Exh. PW 5/4, was a created document and filed with a view to claim more compensation. He thus contended that as’ statements of the witnesses remained unrebutted and thus, the Tribunal has correctly placed reliance on income tax return, Exh. PW 5/4.

    32. I do not concur with the learned counsel for the respondents for the reason, lack of cross-examination does not cure the inherent suspicious nature of the income tax return, Exh. PW 5/4.

    33. Thus, I hold that income of the deceased cannot be determined on the basis of the income tax return, Exh. PW 5/4.

    34. Likewise, assessment order, Exh. PW 5/3 whereunder income tax payable by the deceased was assessed on the basis of the income tax return. Exh. PW 5/4 cannot be relied upon.

    35. The next question is, whether it is proved that the deceased was a Director in C.K Exporters Pvt. Ltd. and was paid a monthly remuneration of Rs. 3,500.

    36. It is an admitted fact that the claim made was that the deceased was appointed as a Director in the said company in August 1984, i.e, 3 months prior to his death.

    37. Another admitted fact is that the company in question is a private limited company.

    38. Next admitted fact is that though stated to be a Director in the company, the deceased was not holding any share in the company.

    39. No reasons have been given as to why the deceased was made a Director in the company even though he had no pecuniary investment or stake in the company. It is not shown nor proved that the company is a family owned company.

    40. A perusal of Exh. PW 1/1 stated to be the salary certificate of the deceased shows that alleged salary for the month of October and November 1984 was credited to the alleged loan account of the deceased.

    41. Section 303(2) of the Companies Act, 1956 makes it mandatory for a company to file form No. 32 when a Director is appointed. Form No. 32 evidencing the appointment of the deceased as a Director in the said company has not been placed on record.

    42. Witnesses of the respondents had deposed that a sum of Rs. 550 was deducted as tax at source from the alleged remuneration of Rs. 3,500. But, no T.D.S certificate showing the said deduction has been placed on record.

    43. Above facts show that the respondents have tried to create evidence of some payment made in the past to the deceased by the company being utilised to show that the deceased was a Director in the company.

    44. Thus, I hold that it is not proved that the deceased was a Director in the said company and was being paid a monthly remuneration of Rs. 3,500.

    45. The next question to be determined is whether the deceased was a partner in Gopi Nath & Sons and Shibban Lal Gopi Nath having 30 per cent share in each firm. If so, what were his earnings from said firms?

    46. Copies of partnership deeds, Exh. PW 6/2 and Exh. PW 6/3 placed on record establish that the deceased was a partner in said firms and was having 30 per cent share in each firm.

    47. In relation to earnings of deceased from firm Gopi Nath & Sons, the assessment order, Exh. PW 5/2 is relevant. The same shows annual income/profit of said firm as Rs. 27,170 for the assessment year 1984-85. Share of the deceased is shown as Rs. 6,832. As the said assessment order was on the basis of a return which was filed prior to the death of the deceased, the same can be accepted.

    48. In the said assessment order, annual income of the firm is shown as Rs. 27,170 and the share of the deceased is shown as Rs. 6,832.

    49. Thus, I hold that annual income of the deceased from the firm Gopi Nath & Sons was Rs. 6,832.

    50. To show the earnings of the deceased from the firm Shibban Lal Gopi Nath, assessment order, Exh. PW 5/1 has been placed on record. The same shows annual income/profit of said firm in the assessment year 1984-85 as Rs. 92,320. The share of the deceased has been shown as Rs. 24,708.

    51. It is relevant to note that afore-noted assessment order has been issued on basis of an income tax return which was filed subsequent to the death of the deceased in the said accident.

    52. The partnership deed, Exh. PW 6/2, shows that partnership firm Shibban Lal Gopi Nath commenced in the year 1963.

    53. A perusal of the record of Claims Tribunal shows that no income tax return filed prior to the death of the deceased has been placed on record.

    54. At this juncture, I note the testimony of Diwan Chand, PW 5, who was an accountant in Shibban Lal Gopi Nath. He had deposed that said firm was assessed to income tax.

    55. If the firm was assessed to income tax as deposed by the afore-noted witness, then the question arises why no income tax return which was allegedly filed, prior to the death of the deceased has been placed on record.

    56. The fact that no income tax return which was filed prior to the death of the deceased has been placed on record leads to an inference that earnings/profits of the said firm were such on which no income tax was payable.

    57. In absence of any income tax return which was filed prior to the death of the deceased, not much reliance can be placed on assessment order, Exh. PW 5/1, which is based on income tax return which was filed subsequent to death of the deceased.

    58. For the assessment year 1984-85, income up to’Rs. 15,000 per annum was non-taxable income. Therefore, I hold that annual income/profits of the firm Shibban Lal Gopi Nath was Rs. 15,000. Since the share of the deceased was 30 per cent, the annual earnings of the deceased comes to Rs. 4,500.

    59. In view of my above discussion and particularly paras 48 and 57, I hold that total annual income of the deceased comes to Rs. 11,332 (Rs. 6,832 + Rs. 4,500 = Rs. 11,332).

    60. As noted hereinabove, in the assessment year 1984-85, the income up to Rs. 15,000 per annum was non-taxable income. Therefore, no deduction is made towards income tax.

    61. Taking into consideration the fact that minimum wages as notified under the Minimum Wages Act increase by nearly 250 per cent to 300 per cent every 10 years to neutralise rise in inflation and cost of living, it could reasonably be expected that the earnings of the deceased would have doubled by the time he would have stopped earning. Thus, mean average annual income of the deceased comes to Rs. 16,998.

    62. Deducting ⅓rd towards personal spending of the deceased, annual loss of dependency comes to Rs. 11,332.

    63. Tribunal has applied multiplier of 15. Considering that deceased was aged 45 years at the time of the accident, multiplier of 15 as applied by the Tribunal is on the higher side. I consider multiplier of 11 as appropriate.

    64. Thus, the total loss of dependency comes to Rs. 1,24,652.

    65. Tribunal has awarded Rs. 3,00,000 for loss of dependency. Thus, compensation is reduced by a sum of Rs. 1,75,348.

    66. Award dated 23.8.1989 is modified by reducing the compensation under the head ‘loss of dependency by a sum of Rs. 1,75,348.

    67. F.A.O No. 30 of 1990 accordingly stands disposed of by reducing the compensation by a sum of Rs. 1,75,348.

    68. As already noted, cross-objections bearing No. 2116 of 1990 were filed praying for enhancement of compensation.

    69. It is settled law that normal rule of determination of loss of dependency is not strictly applicable to cases where capital asset is the income of the deceased. See decision of the Supreme Court reported as New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Charlie, 2005 ACJ 1131 (SC).

    70. In view of my above discussion, I hold that no ground for enhancement is made out.

    71. CM. No. 2116 of 1990 is accordingly dismissed.

    72. As already noted, F.A.O No. 16 of 1992 challenges the order dated 9.4.1991 by which review sought by dependants was allowed and award dated 23.8.1989 was modified.

    73. It is settled law that the power to review is not an inherent power. It must be conferred by law either specifically or by necessary implication. [See Patel Narshi Thakershi v. Pradyumansinghji Arjun-singhji, (1971) 3 SCC 844 : AIR 1970 SC 1273],

    74. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 does not confer power to review on Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal. Thus, Tribunal was not justified in allowing review filed by the dependants and passing award dated 9.4.1991

    75. Even otherwise, as the original award dated 23.8.1989 is legally not sustainable as discussed and held above, the necessary corollary that emerges is that award dated 9.4.1991 which had modified award dated 23.8.1989 becomes null and void.

    76. F.A.O No. 16 of 1992 is accordingly allowed and order/award dated 9.4.1991 is set aside.

    77. F.A.O No. 30 of 1990 is allowed in terms of para 65 above.

    78. CM. No. 2116 of 1990 in F.A.O No. 30 of 1990 is dismissed.

    79. No costs.

    80. Appeals allowed.

    Use AI to get other relevant cases.
    Try AI Pro free for 7 days Upgrade to AI Pro

    Comments

    Delhi Development Authority v. Rukmani Bansal And Others
    (May 7, 2007)