The judgment emphasizes that the extraordinary writ jurisdiction should not be misused as a substitute for regular remedies, especially when there is no justification for not resorting to the regular remedy within the specified time.

JUDGMENT :

Dinesh Maheshwari, J.—On 16.5.1999, while travelling as a passenger in a bus bearing registration No. RJ 21-P 0450 from Khinvsar to Jodhpur, the petitioner sustained injuries when the said bus collided with an oncoming truck bearing registration No. AS 25-8813. The petitioner and so also several other victims of such vehicular accident filed their respective claim applications seeking compensation; and the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal [Additional District Judge (Fast Track) No. 4], Jodhpur, proceeded to make a common award in their relation on 26.11.2005. So far the petitioner's case (Claim Case No. 884 of 2004) was concerned, the learned Tribunal awarded him compensation in the sum of Rs. 9,000 together with interest at the rate of 7.5 per cent per annum while fastening equal liability on the insurer of the bus and the owner of the truck involved in the accident.

2. Being aggrieved of the quantum of compensation awarded and seeking enhancement, the petitioner has chosen to prefer this petition for writ under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India against the said award dated 26.11.2005.

3. Perusal of the record makes out that petitioner applied for the certified copy of the award on 29.11.2005 and received the same on 5.1.2006. However, this writ petition was filed only on 26.7.2006 and was admitted for consideration on 21.8.2007 after noticing the contention urged on behalf of the petitioner that the Tribunal has not taken into consideration his earnings in the range of about Rs. 8,000 to Rs. 9,000 per month.

4. On the notices issued, the respondent Nos. 1,2,4 and 5 have been served; but, for want of service of notices on the respondent No. 3, the petitioner was required to file process fees and notices afresh; and for default in compliance, the matter was placed before the court for orders on 6.3.2009.

5. On 6.3.2009, though the matter was placed on board for default on the part of the petitioner, however, after examining the subject-matter and noticing that by way of this petition, the petitioner seeks enhancement of the amount of compensation as awarded by the Tribunal with a prayer that the award amount may be enhanced as per the claim petition wherein he sought compensation in the sum of Rs. 9,50,000, this Court expressed prima facie doubts on the competence of this writ petition for such enhancement of the amount of compensation particularly because of availability of statutory remedy of appeal u/s 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988 ('the Act'). The learned Counsel for the petitioner prayed for some time to satisfy the court about the competence of this writ petition and at his request, the matter was adjourned for consideration today.

6. Today, learned Counsel for the petitioner, apart from referring to Sub-section (2) of Section 173 of the Act for contending on the competence of this writ petition, also attempted to make submissions on the merits of the case that petitioner is entitled to be awarded compensation as claimed and that the amount as awarded by the Tribunal remains too low and insufficient. However, so far the submissions on the merits of the case are concerned, the same are not being gone into for the reasons that the very competence of this writ petition is in question and rather on 6.3.2009, this Court specifically posted the petition today for consideration of this question only.

7. On the competence of this writ petition, the learned Counsel for the petitioner has essentially referr173ed to Sub-section (2) of Section 173 of the Act and has contended that there being a bar on maintainability of appeal if the amount in dispute is less than Rs. 10,000; and in the present case, the Tribunal having awarded an amount of Rs. 9,000 only, the petitioner has rightly preferred this writ petition challenging the award made by the Tribunal. In support of his submissions, learned Counsel has also referred to a decision of Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of National Insurance Company