The High Court's power to interfere with the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is limited to cases where the award is wholly unjustified, perverse, or without evidence.

P.K. PALLI, J.—All these Miscellaneous Petitions (CMPs. (M) No. 669 to 672 of 1997) are proposed to be disposed of by a common order. All these petitions are directed against the award given by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Nahan dated September 15, 1997.

2. The facts and the accident are not disputed. On analysis, the Tribunal has awarded an amount of less than Rs. 10,000 in each of these petitions on account of compensation for the injuries sustained by the applicants/claimants in the course of the accident. Liability has been fastened on Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, i.e. the owner as well as the driver of the offending bus, jointly and severally. Admittedly, the remedy of statutory appeal is barred when the amount of compensation is less than Rs. 10,000/

3. It is in this manner that challenge to the award has been made by the petitioner by way of petitions filed under Section 227 of the Constitution of India. Shri Kuldip Singh has referred to the covernote Ext. R-1, letter dated November 14, 1996 Ext. R-2, Draft dated November 23, 1996 Ext. R-6, letter dated November 26, 1996 Ext. R-8 and it is being urged that these documents have been misconstrued and misinterpreted. It is further sought to be urged that the acceptance of the deposit on November 26,1996 and the policy document having been issued latter becomes valid from the date of the covernote dated October 19, 1996.

4. Mr. Kuldip Singh is further at pains to argue that the provisions of law have not been properly appreciated and the award stands vitiated on that account and it is a fit case where this Court should entertain these petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

5. Mr. Ravi Bakshi, learned Counsel appearing for Respondent No. 3, in reply, has raised an objection that the present petitions are not maintainable and this Court should not exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to look into the validity or otherwise of the award which otherwise, according to the learned Counsel, is a valid award having been given on appreciation of the evidence and keeping the relevant provisions of law in view.

6. Both the learned Counsel have relied upon a number of judgments in support of their respective contentions.

7. After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties at length, I am of (he view that a wholly unjustified order, a perverse order or an order with no evidence can certainly be interfered with while exercising the jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. This Court is invested with judicial superintendence and invested with special jurisdiction to see that the Courts and Tribunals which are functioning within the jurisdiction of this Court, act within their authority and in the manner required by law.

8. Where a case is made out that the authorities or the Tribunals have exceeded their authority or have otherwise acted in capricious and arbitrary manner transgressing their limits, this Court can certainly interfere. The case law on the subject over the years have repeatedly said that the power by this Court has to be exercised with utmost caution and in extreme situations most sparingly and with requisite care and circumscription.

9. It is, thus, to be seen whether the petitioner in the present case has been able to make out a case for interference keeping in view the aforesaid principles. As I look at the matter, the Motor Vehicles Act is aimed to provide relief by way of compensation to the injured or the deceased in the given situation. The exercise of the powers by this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India should not be so exercised in order to circumvent the statutory provisions contained in a particular Act. Sub-section (2) of Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act clearly lays down that no appeal shall lie against any award of a Claims Tribunal if the amount in dispute in the appeal is less than rupees ten thousand.