JUDGMENT :

Parthivjyoti Saikia, J.

Hear Mr. A. K. Purkayastha, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners as well as Mr. R.P. Sarmah, learned senior counsel representing the respondent.

2. This is an application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India whereby the order dated 11.05.2020 passed by the learned Munsiff No. 2, Kamrup (M), Guwahati in Title Execution Case No. 41/2016 re-issuing the writ for recovery of possession of the decreetal land.

3. The facts necessary for disposal of this petition is as under:

The respondent filed a suit being TS 92/2002 against the petitioners seeking a declaration of right, title and interest over a plot of land as well as for recovery of possession of that land. The suit was decreed in favour of the respondents. In the appellate courts also, the respondent lost. Therefore, execution proceeding was initiated. The decree was executed accordingly. But subsequently, the petitioners again encroached upon the land and when the respondent approached the Executive Court, another writ for recovery of possession was issued.

4. I have gone through the impugned order dated 11.05.2020.

5. Under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, High Court does not hear an appeal. The power under Article 227 is a supervisory power. High Court exercises this power when the Courts and the Tribunals subordinate to it does not exercise the power vested upon them by a statute or when they exceed their power vested upon them by a particular statute. Under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, High Court is not supposed to interfere into any order passed by a subordinate court or by a Tribunal even if there is any some defects therein. This is an appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the judgment and award dated 31.03.2015 passed by the MACT No. 3, Kamrup, in MAC Case No. 589/2012.

6. On 08.01.2012, the deceased was travelling in a Santro car bearing registration no. AS-01-AE-0426. At about 6 AM, the vehicle met with an accident and because of the injuries sustained by him, he expired. Therefore, the claim petition was filed before the Tribunal.

7. The Insurance Company contested the case by filing a written statement.

8. The Tribunal framed two issues upon the pleadings of the parties. They read as under:

(i) Whether the victim (late) Rajib Paul died as a result of the injuries sustained by him in the alleged road accident dated 08.01.2012 involving vehicle no. AS-01-AE-0426 (Santro, Xing RLX) and whether the said accident took place due to under use and involvement of the said vehicle (sic.)?

(ii) Whether the claimant is entitled to receive any compensation, and if yes, to what extent and by whom amongst the opposite party, the said compensation amount will be payable (sic.)?

9. The respondent examined one witness. The Insurance Company did not adduce any evidence.

10. On the basis of the evidence on record, the Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs. 7,73,000/- along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition.

11. The appellant Insurance Company has preferred this appeal that the claim petition was filed under Section 163 A of the M.V. Act of 1988. Even in the prayer portion of the claim petition, it has been stated that the compensation was paid for under the second schedule of the M.V. Act of 1988.

12. The learned counsel Mr. Goswami has submitted that the impugned judgment has deviated from the mandate of law under Section 163 A of the MV Act. Mr. Goswami has further submitted that now, according to the Notification issued by the Ministry of Road, Transport and Highways, in case of a fatal accident, the compensation shall be Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs) only under sub Section 163 A of the M.V. Act.

13. I have also heard the learned counsel Mr. P. Mahanta, appearing for the respondents.

14. On a thorough reading of the claim petition, it is clear on the face of the record that the claim petition was filed under Section 163 A of the M.V. Act not under Section