JUDGMENT :

Alka Sarin, J. (Oral)

The present revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the owner and driver against the award dated 28.09.2022 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Patiala whereby compensation of Rs.21,380/- was awarded in favour of the claimant and the appellants herein along with Insurance Company were held jointly and severally liable to pay the same.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that although the provision of Section 173(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 specifically provides that no appeal shall lie against any award of a Claims Tribunal if the amount in dispute in the appeal is less than rupees one lakh but the said section does not bar from filing a revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

3. Section 173(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the MV Act') stood amended w.e.f. 01.04.2022 and reads as under :

'(2) No appeal shall lie against any award of a Claims Tribunal if the amount in dispute in the appeal is less than one lakh rupees.'

4. A perusal of the above would show that the amount 'ten thousand' rupees has been replaced by the amount 'one lakh' and admittedly the amount of compensation awarded in the present case is less than one lakh rupees.

5. In the case of Bharti AXA General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Sahab Singh & Ors. [CR-6131-2016 decided on 19.09.2016], a Coordinate Bench of this Court had observed that the plain and simple reading of sub-section 2 of Section 173 of the MV Act prohibits any person from challenging the award if the amount of compensation is less than the amount mentioned in the said provision. It was further observed that once statutory provisions prohibit the filing of the statutory appeal, the affected party cannot be permitted to circumvent the statutory provisions of law by invoking the power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and accordingly the revision petition was held to be not maintainable.

6. Further, a similar petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the award of the Tribunal, wherein the compensation amount was less rupees one lakh, was held to be not maintainable by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Shriram General Insurance Company Limited vs. Sandeep & Ors. [CR-1727-2025 decided on 21.03.2025].

7. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shalini Shyam Shetty & Anr. Vs. Rajendra Shankar Patil [2010 (8) SCC 329] had formulated the following principles on the exercise of High Court's jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India :

'62. On an analysis of the aforesaid decisions of this Court, the following principles on the exercise of High Court's jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution may be formulated :

(a) A petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is different from a petition under Article 227. The mode of exercise of power by High Court under these two Articles is also different.

(b) In any event, a petition under Article 227 cannot be called a writ petition. The history of the conferment of writ jurisdiction on High Courts is substantially different from the history of conferment of the power of Superintendence on the High Courts under Article 227 and have been discussed above.

(c) High Courts cannot, on the drop of a hat, in exercise of its power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution, interfere with the orders of tribunals or Courts inferior to it. Nor can it, in exercise of this power, act as a Court of appeal over the orders of Court or tribunal subordinate to it. In cases where an alternative statutory mode of redressal has been provided, that would also operate as a restrain on the exercise of this power by the High Court.

(d) The parameters of interference by High Courts in exercise of its power of superintendence have been repeatedly laid down by this Court. In this regard the High Court must be guided by the principles