N.N. Tiwari, J.

1. The stamp reports in both the civil revisions have given rise to a common question as to whether these civil revisions are maintainable in view of the provisions of Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988?

2. The question being common in both the cases, the same have been heard and being decided by this common order.

3. Civil Revision No. 127 of 2004 has been preferred against the judgment and award dated 25.5.2004 (Award sealed and signed on 25.8.2004) passed by the Presiding Officer, Motor Vehicles Claims Tribunal, Hazaribagh in Claim Case No. 105 of 1999 whereby the learned Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs. 1,50,000/- along with interest at the rate of 5% per annum with effect from 18.7.1991 till realization payable to the claimant by the petitioner Insurance Company.

4. The petitioner has challenged the said award, inter alia on the ground that the deceased was a minor aged about 8 years and was a non-earning member, but the learned Tribunal has wrongly adopted the multiplier method. According to the petitioner, the quantum of compensation should have been decided on a lump- sum basis. It has been contended that the Tribunal has not properly discussed the facts and evidences and has erred in recording its findings.

5. The Civil Revision No. 134 of 2004 has been filed against a judgment and award dated 26.3.2004 passed by the 12th Additional District Judge-cum-MATC Judge, Dhanbad in Title (Motor Vehicle) Suit No. 183 of 2002, whereby learned Tribunal has directed the petitioner-Insurance Company to pay compensation of Rs. 1,50,000/- to the claimants. In this petition also the petitioner has assailed the validity of award by which the said compensation amount has been awarded, by applying the multiplier method though the deceased was a minor aged eight years.

6. In view of the points raised in these cases, the facts of the cases are not of much relevance. The revisionists have contested the awards only on the point of law.

7. On the point of maintainability of these civil revisions, the learned counsel for the petitioners in both the cases submitted that in view of the limited scope of contest by the insurer only on the ground mentioned in Section 149 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act), the petitioner has no scope to file an appeal on other grounds than those enumerated in Section 149(2) of the said, Act. According to the learned counsel, the grounds on the basis of which the impugned judgments and awards have been challenged do not fall within the ambit of Section 149(2) and no appeal is maintainable. There being no other remedy, the petitioners have only remedy to file the instant revision application before this Court under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The learned counsel placed their reliance on a decision of the Apex Court in the case of Sadhana Lodh v. National Insurance Co. Ltd., reported in (2003) 3 SCC 524. The relevant part of the judgment reads thus :-

"6. The right of appeal is a statutory right and where the law provides remedy by filing an appeal on limited grounds, the grounds of challenge cannot be enlarged by filing a petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution on the premise that the insurer has limited grounds available for challenging the award given by the Tribunal. Section 149(2) of the Act limits the insurer to file an appeal on those enumerated ground and the appeal being a product of the statute is not open to an insurer to take any plea other than those provided under Section 149(2) of the Act (see National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nicolletta Rohtagi, AIR 2002 SC 3350). This being the legal position, the petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution by the insurer was wholly misconceived. Where a statutory right to file an appeal has been provided for, it is not open to the High Court to entertain a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution. Even if where a remedy by way of an appeal has not been provid