ORDER : Heard the learned counsels for the parties. 2. The present writ petition has been field for issuance of writ of certiorari for quashing the order dated 19.07.2006 passed by 6th Addl. District Judge, Dhanbadcum MACT, Dhanbad in Misc. Case No. 1(b) of 2004, whereby the learned Judge has been pleased to direct the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.77,377/- to the respondent being the interest amount from the period when the respondent was not a party in the motor vehicle accident claims proceeding. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on 30.06.1984, the claimant Ram Gopal Verma filed a Title (MV) Suit No. 54 of 1984 for award of compensation of Rs.94,200/- on account of accidental injury allegedly caused by the vehicle of the petitioner company. Initially, the said claim case was filed against the New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and the present petitioner as opposite party no. 2. The learned Tribunal vide order dated 28.03.1992 awarded a sum of Rs.48,400/- in favour of the claimant which was to be paid by the petitioner. The petitioner preferred an appeal being MA No. 78 of 1992(R) before this Court against the said award and during the argument, it transpired that the vehicle was insured with the respondent National Insurance Co. Ltd. This Court vide order dated 20.02.1998, after hearing the parties, set-aside the impugned award and remanded the matter back for fresh hearing by taking the certificate of insurance as additional evidence and for fixing the liability. On 05.08.2000, the petitioner moved an application before the Tribunal for impleading the respondent as party defendant. On 03.05.2002, the respondent appeared before the Tribunal and on 09.01.2003, it filed the written statement denying and disputing its liability on several grounds including the fact that the record with respect to the insurance of the concerned vehicle was not found. On 16.01.2003, the learned Tribunal passed the award holding that the respondent Insurance Company is liable to pay an amount of Rs.48,400/- with interest @ 9% from the date of filing of the claim case. The respondent in compliance of the said award, paid the claimant an amount of Rs.48,400/- with interest of Rs.80,440/- on 29.05.2003 and the claimant received the said amount on 11.06.2003. The respondent in compliance of the said award, paid the claimant an amount of Rs.48,400/- with interest of Rs.80,440/- on 29.05.2003 and the claimant received the said amount on 11.06.2003. Thereafter, the respondent filed an application under Section 174 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter to be referred as “the Act”) on 11.06.2003 itself for issuance of certificate against the petitioner for recovery of the interest amount of Rs.80,440/- which was rejected. Subsequently, on 11.02.2004, the respondent filed another application being Misc. Case No. 1(b) of 2004 before the Tribunal for initiation of recovery proceeding to recover the interest amount from the petitioner. The petitioner, on receipt of notice appeared in the said case and filed the show-cause. However, the learned Tribunal vide order dated 19.07.2006, modified the earlier award dated 16.01.2003 holding the petitioner liable to pay interest of Rs.77,377/-. The petitioner has thus challenged the order dated 19.07.2006 passed by the learned Tribunal in the present writ petition. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned Tribunal had no jurisdiction to modify the original award since the learned Tribunal became functus officio. It is also submitted that once the Tribunal has rejected the application of the respondent filed under Section 174 of the Motor Vehicles Act for issuance of certificate for recovery vide order dated 11.06.2003, it could not have entertained the subsequent application filed by the respondent in absence of any such power conferred to it by the Act. 5. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent submits that vide impugned order dated 19.07.2006, the learned Tribunal simply clarified the position of inter se liability between the owner of the vehicle and the Insurance Company with regard to the apportionment of interest which was paid to the claimant in pursuance of the award. In fact, the claimant filed the Title (MV) Suit No. 54 of 1984 for getting compensation of Rs.94,200/- for his accidental injury by impleading New India Assurance Company Ltd. and the petitioner as defendants in the said suit. The learned Tribunal vide award dated 28.03.1992 directed the petitioner to pay the claim amount of Rs.48,400/-. Aggrieved by the said award dated 28.03.1992, the petitioner preferred an appeal before this Court being MA No. 78 of 1992(R). The learned Tribunal vide award dated 28.03.1992 directed the petitioner to pay the claim amount of Rs.48,400/-. Aggrieved by the said award dated 28.03.1992, the petitioner preferred an appeal before this Court being MA No. 78 of 1992(R). In course of hearing of the said MA, it surfaced that the certificate of insurance of the concerned vehicle was issued by the respondent Insurance Company and accordingly, vide order dated 20.02.1998, the matter was remanded to the Tribunal for fresh hearing. The learned counsel for the respondent while justifying the impugned order dated 19.07.2006 passed by the learned Tribunal submits that since the respondent was made party in the suit on 19.05.2001 and it appeared in the said suit on 03.05.2002 due to the laches on the part of the petitioner as it was not made party earlier in the Title (MV) Suit No. 54 of 1984, the respondent is legally entitled to recover the interest amount from 30.06.1984 to 02.05.2002 from the petitioner. As such, the impugned order dated 19.07.2006 warrants no interference by this Court. 6. Having heard the learned counsels for the parties and after going through the relevant documents placed on record, it appears that after remand of the matter by this Court, the original award was passed by the learned Tribunal holding the respondent liable to pay the amount of Rs.48,400/- with interest @ 9% from the date of filing of the claim. In compliance of the said award, the respondent also paid an amount of Rs.48,400/- with interest of Rs.80,440/to the claimant on 29.05.2003. It is important to notice that the respondent, thereafter filed an application under Section 174 of the MV Act for issuance of certificate against the petitioner for recovery of interest amount of Rs.80,440/-. However, the said petition was rejected by the learned Tribunal. In such situation, filing of subsequent application by the respondent before the learned Tribunal for recovery of interest amount from the petitioner was not maintainable in absence of any such power conferred to the Tribunal under the Act either to modify the order or to review the same. Entertaining the subsequent petition by the learned Tribunal and initiating the Misc. Case No. 1(b) of 2004, in fact, amounted to reviewing the earlier order passed by it. Entertaining the subsequent petition by the learned Tribunal and initiating the Misc. Case No. 1(b) of 2004, in fact, amounted to reviewing the earlier order passed by it. Admittedly, the respondent neither challenged the award dated 16.01.2003 passed by the learned Tribunal nor any order was passed on the application filed by the respondent under Section 174 of the Act. Thus, the learned Tribunal could not have assumed the power to entertain subsequent application filed by the respondent. It is well settled that the Courts/Tribunals assumes power/jurisdiction conferred by the statute. In the case of “Bhavnagar University Vs. Palitana Sugar Mill (P) Ltd.” reported in (2003) 2 SCC 111 , the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under: “40. It is well settled that when a statutory authority is required to do a thing in a particular manner, the same must be done in that manner or not at all. The State and other authorities while acting under the said Act are only creature of statute. They must act within the four corners thereof.” 7. In view of the aforesaid discussions, I am of the considered view that the learned Tribunal was not empowered under law to modify the earlier award vide impugned order dated 19.07.2006. The initiation of Misc. Case No. 1(b) of 2004 itself was without jurisdiction as the Tribunal has not been conferred with any such power to modify its award passed under Section 168 of the Act, particularly in view of the fact that the petition filed by the respondent under Section 174 of the Act for issuance of certificate of recovery against the petitioner was already rejected. In the said circumstance, the impugned order dated 19.07.2006 passed in Misc. Case no. 1(b) of 2004 cannot be legally sustained and the same is accordingly quashed and set-aside. 8. The writ petition is accordingly allowed.