In RA-CR No.147 of 2020-PUNJ HC- P&H HC dismisses review application challenging appeal in motor accident case in view of settled law that in review jurisdiction, Court cannot re-appreciate evidence to arrive at different conclusion even if two views are possible in matter
Justice Meenakshi I. Mehta [30-01-2023]

Read Order: Phullo & Others v. Noman & Others 

Monika Rahar

Chandigarh, January 31, 2023: The Punjab and Haryana High Court has dismissed review application filed by the respondents in an appeal granting compensation of Rs 7,86,000 to the claimants in a motor accident case, assailing the appeal on the ground that the appellate court did not take into consideration, the evidence which showed that on the date of the alleged accident, the offending vehicle was in the possession of the police. 

The Bench of Justice Meenakshi I. Mehta relied upon the Supreme Court decision which held that it is well settled that in exercise of review jurisdiction, the Court cannot re-appreciate the evidence to arrive at a different conclusion even if two views are possible in a matter. 

“In the light of these observations, it becomes crystal clear that the prayer made by the applicants is beyond the ambit of the above-discussed provisions which confer the review jurisdiction upon the Court”, the Bench added. 

The appellants-claimants preferred an appeal to assail the Award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhari whereby the claim petition filed by them against the applicants and the Insurance Company under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for seeking the compensation on account of the death of Balinder Singh was dismissed. 

The Co-ordinate Bench allowed the appeal and granted compensation amounting to Rs. 7,86,000/-, to them (claimants). The applicants moved this Review Application while averring that the Tractor alleged to be involved was in police custody at the time of the accident, but the Court ignored the same fact as also the depositions as made by Constable Vipin Kumar in this regard and thus, wrongly allowed the appeal. 

The counsel for the applicants contended that while deciding the afore-said appeal, the Co-ordinate Bench did not take the above-referred clinching evidence into consideration which showed that on the date of the alleged accident, the offending vehicle was in the possession of the police. 

Per contra, the counsel for the appellants-claimants argued that the pleas set-forth by the applicants in this Review Application, were beyond the scope of the provisions as contained in Section 114 and Order 47 Rule 1 CPC, hence, the instant application be dismissed. 

After hearing the parties, the Court observed that by way of filing the present Review Application, the applicants prayed for hearing the afore-said appeal afresh and to pass an appropriate order while re-appreciating evidence as led before the Tribunal, but the Court added, 

“it is worthwhile to mention here that re-appreciation and revaluation of the evidence can, by no stretch of imagination, be construed to be intent and purpose for enacting the afore-said provisions' '. 

The Court further observed that the Supreme Court has held that it is well settled that in exercise of review jurisdiction, the Court cannot re-appreciate the evidence to arrive at a different conclusion even if two views are possible in a matter. 

In the light of these observations, the Bench opined that it becomes crystal clear that the prayer made by the applicants was beyond the ambit of the above-discussed provisions which confer the review jurisdiction upon the Court. 

The instant Review Application was dismissed.