An appeal is maintainable against an award under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, as it constitutes an award under Section 173, and revisions are not permissible.

JUDGMENT :

Vivek Singh Thakur, J.

This Revision Petition has been preferred by the Insurance Company against order dated 3^rd August, 2018 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sirmaur District at Nahan in MACT Petition No.199-N/2 of 2013 titled Masto Devi vs. Ravi Dutt whereby an application under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act (MV Act) along with main claim petition under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, filed for grant of ‘no fault liability’ to the tune of Rs.50,000/-, has been allowed and petitioner-Insurance Company has been directed to pay Rs.50,000/- to the mother i.e. respondent No.1 Masto Devi being only Class-I heir of her deceased son.

2. Learned counsel for respondent No.4 submits that against an order granting compensation for ‘no fault liability’ under Section 140 of Motor Vehicles Act, Civil Revision Petition is not maintainable but only appeal is maintainable.

3. Learned counsel for petitioner has claimed that Revision Petition is maintainable. To substantiate his claim, he has placed reliance on Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd vs. Sudip Ranjan Deb and others reported in 2009 ACJ 22 (Gauhati); Gurucharansing Hardayalsing Sethi vs. Narhari Laxman Shinde and others reported in 1997 (2) TAC 508 (Bom.); National Insurance Co. Ltd. and another vs. Asha Devi & another reported in 1997 (2) T.A.C. 513 (MP); Sri Vidya Sagar Singh vs. Shanti Devi and others reported in 1994 (2) T.A.C. 295 (Patna); Sarjubai vs. Gurudip Singh and others reported in 1995 (1) T.A.C. 114 (M.P.); and New India Assurance Co. Ltd vs. Raghubir and others reported in 1994 ACJ 987 (MP).

4. In Gurucharansing’s case, issue was that as to whether the Revision Petition is maintainable against the rejection of application filed for setting aside the ex-parte award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and this judgment is not related to application filed under Section 140 of MV Act. Order passed in an application filed for setting aside ex-parte order is not an Award and under Section 173 of MV Act. Appeal has been provided only against an Award. Therefore, this judgment is of no help to the petitioner.

5. Learned counsel for respondent No.4 has placed reliance upon judgment passed by the Supreme Court in Yallwwa (Smt.) and others vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd and another reported in (2007) 6 SCC 657 wherein after considering the various earlier judgments of the Supreme Court as well as High Courts, it has been observed and held as under:-

“13. It may be noted that Chapter X of the Act provides for no forum for enforcement of the right under Section 140. The only forum available is in Chapter XII. The right under Section 140 can only be enforced under Section 168 as an award. An appeal, therefore, lies under Section 173 against such an award seeking to enforce the right under Section 140

…...

19. Furthermore, evidently, the amount directed to be paid even in terms of Chapter X of the Act must as of necessity, in the event of non-compliance with directions, has to be recovered in terms of Section 174 of the Act. There is no other provision in the Act which takes care of such a situation. We, therefore, are of the opinion that even when objections are raised by the insurance company in regard to its liability, the Tribunal is required to render a decision upon the issue, which would attain finality and, thus, the same would be an award within the meaning of Section 173 of the Act.

…….

29. In our considered opinion, the said decision does not state the law correctly. In our opinion, an order of the Tribunal awarding compensation under Section 140 of the Act is appealable under Section 173 as it amounts to an award under Section 173.”

6. Section 173 of MV Act reads as under:-

“173. Appeals- (1) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (2) any person aggrieved by an award of a Claims Tribunal may, within ninety days from the date of the award, prefer an appeal to the High Court:

Provided that no appeal by the person who is required to pay any amount in