B.B. DEB, J.— Heard Mr D.K. Biswas, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr P. Chakraborty, learned counsel for the respondents. 2. Being aggrieved by the order dated 16.8.2001 passed in Civil Misc. 254/2000 by the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, West Tripura, Agartala, the petitioner Insurance Company preferred this Civil Revision. 3. In Title Suit (MAC) No. 290 of 1998, the learned Member Tribunal made an award of Rs.20,000/- in favour of the claimant respondent No. 1 herein as he sustained damage to his property as a result of vehicular accident happened on 30.5.1998. The truck bearing No TRL-1736 having been insured with the insurer petitioner knocked down cattle, as a result the cattle received multiple compound injuries and ultimately while under treatment it succumbed to the injuries on 23.6.1998. The learned Member Tribunal made an award of Rs.20,000/- in favour of the claimant-respondent No. 1 being the loss sustained by him on different heads. The Insurance Company filed a review petition before the learned tribunal in Civil Misc. 254 of 2000 and the learned Member Tribunal vide impugned order dated 16.8.2001 refused to review the order on the ground that the petitioner Insurance Company could have preferred appeal or revision before the High Court, but instead the petitioner moved review petition and as such the petition was rejected. 4. Mr Biswas, learned counsel for the petitioner having referred Clause (b) of sub-section (2) of Section 147 of the M.V. Act submits that in respect of damage to any property of a third party, the insurer's liability is statutorily limited to Rs.6,000/-only. Since the learned Member Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs.20,000/-contrary to the higher limit prescribed by the statute, it is an omission apparent on the face of the record and as such the learned Member Tribunal ought to have rectified the same by exercising the power of review. 5. Though the provision of review as has been contemplated under the Code of Civil Procedure, has not been incorporated in the M.V. Act, yet being a Presiding Officer of Civil Tribunal constituted under the M.V. Act, obviously for limited purpose the learned Member Tribunal has the power to review his own order if he is satisfied that the order is passed contrary to the provision of law or passed inadvertently having by-passed any law and that is apparent on the face of record without taking further evidence. That power of review is implicit in every Court of civil nature regardless of the power expressly provided under the Code of Civil Procedure, of course in exercising such implicit power of review, the Court/ Tribunal is supposed to follow the procedure prescribed under Order 47 Rule 1 C.P.C. 6. In that view of the matter, I am of the considered opinion that the learned Member Tribunal ought to have reviewed his earlier order allowing the maximum permissible amount at Rs.6,000/- to be paid by the Insurance Company and the balance amount is to be fastened upon the insured (owner of the vehicle), but that was not done. 7. In that view of the legal position, I allow the revision petition and direct the learned Member Tribunal to review the order dated 1.8.2000 passed in Title Suit (MAC) No. 290 of 1998 in the light of observations made above. 8. The impugned order dated 16.8.2001 passed by the learned Member Tribunal in Civil Misc. 254/2000 is hereby set aside and the learned Member Tribunal is to restore the review petition and decide afresh. 9. With the above observations and direction, the revision petition is allowed and disposed of accordingly. No costs.