Back
2007(2) JLJ 138
(Special Bench)
A.K. Patnaik, C.J., Deepak Verma, S.K. Kulshreshtha,
S.S. Jha and A.M. Sapre, JJ.
National Insurance Co. Ltd., Gwalior v. Shrikant and others
Writ Petition No.4987 of 2003 (Jabalpur), Civil Revisions
No. 2826 of 1999, 604-609 of 2005; Decided on 7.3.2007.
In New India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt. Rafeeka Sultana and others [2001(1) JLJ 1=2000(3) MPLJ 561], ... a Full Bench of this Court held that since under the Act, the Insurance Company cannot file an appeal challenging the quantum of compensation, it cannot file revision under section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code or a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. In view of the judgment of the Full Bench of the High Court in New India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt. Rafeeka Sultana and others (supra), the following substantial question of law has been referred to this Larger Bench for opinion.
"Whether in a case where remedy of appeal is not available under section 173(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, the remedy of revision under section 115 of the CPC or the Constitutional remedy under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India can be invoked to assail an award passed by the Motor Accident Tribunal?" [Para 2
Held : Where appeal is not provided, recourse to revision under section 115 of CPC or writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India would not be justified. But this reference was in relation to the Insurance Company and it is held where Insurance Company cannot file appeal, it cannot file revision under section 115 CPC or petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Thus, it is clear that the full bench judgment was considering the rights of the Insurance Company to file appeal. Defence of the Insurance Company is limited under section 149(2) of the Act; unless permission has been given by the Claims Tribunal for taking defence under section 70(2) of the Act of 1988 by passing a reasoned order, Insurance Company will not have a right of appeal or recourse to revision. Thus, full bench in the case of Rafeeka (supra), has considered the limited defence available to the Insurance Company under section 149(2) of the Act and held that the Insurance Company cannot file appeal against the award beyond the limited defence available to it under section 149(2) of the Act. Thus, necessary implication will be that where appeal by Insurance Company is not permissible on account of the restriction under section 149(2) of the Act, Insurance Company is precluded from challenging the award either under section 115 CPC or under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 2001(1) JLJ 1 (FB) approved. 2003(11) MPWN 15 (SC) followed. [Paras 8 & 11
(2) Civil P.C., 1908 -- Ss.115, 36 and O.21 -- claims Tribunal -- is subordinate to High Court for purposes of S.115 -- it is a civil Court and can execute its own award. 1995 JLJ 4 (SB), 1990 JLJ 386 (FB), 1970 JLJ 142 (FB) and 1971 JLJ 903 relied on. [Para 7
(3) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 -- S.175 -- barring of jurisdiction of civil Court in respect of claim cases -- necessarily means that Tribunal is discharging functions of civil Court. [Para 7
(4) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 -- S.165 -- Civil P.C., 1908 -- Ss.25 and 9 -- Tribunal constituted under S.165 of the Act -- has the trappings of a civil Court and is a civil Court. AIR 1979 SC 855 and 1983 ACJ 123 (SC) followed. 2003 ACJ 1871 (SB) dissented from. [Paras 9 & 10
(5) Civil P.C., 1908 -- S.115 -- Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 -- S.37( 3) -- second appeal barred under S.37( 3) of the Act -- CPC not expressly excluded -- remedy of revision under the Code is available. (2002)5 SCC 510, (2002)5 SCC 520 and (1996)2 SCC 132 followed. [Para 12
(6) Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 -- S.173(2) -- Civil P.C., 1908 -- S.115 -- appeal is barred when awarded amount is less than ten thousand rupees -- there being no provision barring revision under S.115 of the Code, same is maintainable against such order. [Paras 13 & 14
(7) Civil P.C., 1908 -- S.115 -- revision -- scope is limited -- Court must only be satisfied that order passed is within jurisdiction. 2006(1) JLJ 135 (SC) followed. [Para 16
(8) Constitution of India -- Art.226/227 -- Civil P.C., 1908 -- S.115 -- Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 -- Ss.168 and 173(2) -- award for less than Rs.10,000/- -- remedy of revision available -- writ petition cannot be entertained. [Para 20
¼1½ eksVj ;ku vf/kfu;e] 1988 && /kkjk 149¼2½] 70¼2½ rFkk 173¼2½ && flfoy izfØ;k lafgrk] 1908 && /kkjk 115 && Hkkjr dk lafo/kku && vuq- 227 && chekdrkZ dks /kkjk 149¼2½ ds v/khu lhfer izfrj{kk miyC/k && ekeys dk fojks/k leLr vk/kkjksa ij djus ds fy, /kkjk 70¼2½ ds v/khu vuqKk vfHkizkIr ugha dh xbZ && chekdrkZ dks /kkjk 149¼2½ ds v/khu miyC/k vk/kkjksa ds vfrfjDr vk/kkjksa ij vihy Qkby djus dk vf/kdkj ugha && blh dkj.k iqujh{k.k ;k fjV ds mipkj dk vkJ; ugha ys ldrkA
U;w bafM;k bU‘;ksjsal da- fy- fo- Jherh jQhdk lqYrkuk rFkk vU; [2001¼1½ ts ,y ts 1¾2000¼3½ ,e ih ,y ts 561] esa --- bl U;k;ky; dh iw.kZ U;k;ihB us vfHkfu/kkZfjr fd;k gS fd vf/kfu;e ds v/khu chek daiuh izfrdj ds ifjek.k ij vk{ksi djrs gq, vihy Qkby ugha dj ldrh blfy, og flfoy izfØ;k lafgrk dh /kkjk 115 ds v/khu iqujh{k.k ;k Hkkjr ds lafo/kku vuqPNsn 227 ds v/khu ;kfpdk Qkby ugha dj ldrhA U;w bafM;k bU‘;ksjsUl da- fy- fo- Jherh jQhdk lqYrkuk rFkk vU; ¼iwoksZDr½ esa iw.kZ U;k;ihB ds fu.kZ; dh n`f"V ls c`gÙkj U;k;ihB dks fof/kor fuEufyf[kr lkjoku~ iz‘u jk; ds fy, funsZf‘kr fd;k x;k gS %
D;k ,sls ekeys esa ftlesa eksVj ;ku vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 173¼2½ ds v/khu vihy dk mipkj miyC/k ugha gS] eksVj nq?kZVuk nkok vf/kdj.k }kjk ikfjr vf/kfu.kZ; ij vk{ksi djus ds fy, flfoy izfØ;k lafgrk dh /kkjk 115 ds v/khu iqujh{k.k ds mipkj dk ;k Hkkjr ds lafo/kku ds vuqPNsn 226@227 ds v/khu lkafo/kkfud mipkj dk vkJ; fy;k tk ldrk gS \ ¼iSjk 2
vfHkfu/kkZfjr % tgk¡ vihy micaf/kr ugha gS ogk¡ flfoy izfØ;k lafgrk dh /kkjk 115 ds v/khu iqujh{kk ;k Hkkjr ds lafo/kku ds vuqPNsn 227 ds v/khu fjV ;kfpdk dk vkJ; U;k;ksfpr ugha gksxkA ijarq ;g funsZ‘k chek daiuh ds laca/k esa gS rFkk vfHkfu/kkZfjr fd;k x;k gS fd tgk¡ chek daiuh vihy Qkby ugha dj ldrh] og lafgrk dh /kkjk 115 ds v/khu iqujh{k.k ;k vuqPNsn 227 ds v/khu ;kfpdk Qkby ugha dj ldrhA vr% Li"V gS fd iw.kZ U;k;ihB ds fu.kZ; esa chek daiuh ds vihy Qkby djus ds vf/kdkj ij fopkj fd;k x;k FkkA vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 149¼2½ ds v/khu chek daiuh dh izfrj{kk lhfer gS] tc rd fd nkok vf/kdj.k }kjk vk[;kid vkns‘k ikfjr dj lu~ 1988 ds vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 70¼2½ ds v/khu izfrj{kk ysus ds fy, vuqKk ugha nh xbZ gks] chek daiuh dks vihy dk vf/kdkj ugha gksxk] og iqujh{k.k dk vkJ; ugha ys ldsxhA vr% jQhdk ¼iwoksZDr½ ds ekeys esa iw.kZ U;k;ihB us vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 149¼2½ ds v/khu chek daiuh dks miyC/k lhfer izfrj{kk ij fopkj fd;k gS rFkk vfHkfu/kkZfjr fd;k gS fd chek daiuh vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 149¼2½ ds v/khu mls miyC/k lhfer izfrj{kk ls vfrfjDr vk/kkjksa ij vf/kfu.kZ; ds fo:) vihy Qkby ugha dj ldrhA vr%] vko‘;d :i ls foof{kr gS fd tgk¡ vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 149¼2½ ds v/khu fucZa/ku ds dkj.k chek daiuh }kjk vihy vuqKs; ugha gS ogk¡ chek daiuh lafgrk dh /kkjk 115 ds v/khu ;k Hkkjr ds lafo/kku ds vuqPNsn 227 ds v/khu vf/kfu.kZ; ij lk{ksi djus ls izfrokfjr gSA 2001¼1½ ts ,y ts 1 ¼iw.kZ U;k;ihB½ vuqeksfnrA 2003¼2½ e-iz- ohDyh uksV~l 15 ¼mPpre U;k-½ vuqlfjrA ¼iSjk 8 ,oa 11
¼2½ flfoy izfØ;k lafgrk] 1908 && /kkjk 115] 36 rFkk vk-21 && nkok vf/kdj.k && /kkjk 115 ds izdFkuksa ds fy, mPp U;k;ky; ds v/khuLFk gS && og flfoy U;k;ky; gS vkSj viuk vf/kfu.kZ; fu"ikfnr dj ldrk gSA 1995 ts ,y ts 4 ¼,dy U;k;ihB½] 1990 ts ,y ts 386 ¼iw.kZ U;k;ihB½] 1970 ts ,y ts 142 ¼iw.kZ U;k;ihB½ rFkk 1971 ts ,y ts 903 voyafcrA ¼iSjk 7
¼3½ eksVj ;ku vf/kfu;e] 1988 && /kkjk 175 && nkok ekeyksa ds laca/k esa flfoy U;k;ky; dh vf/kdkfjrk dk otZu && vko‘;d :i ls vfHkizsr gS fd vf/kdj.k flfoy U;k;ky; ds d`R;ksa dk fuoZgu dj jgk gSA ¼iSjk 7
¼4½ eksVj ;ku vf/kfu;e] 1988 && /kkjk 165 && flfoy izfØ;k lafgrk] 1908 && /kkjk 25 rFkk 9 && vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 165 ds v/khu xfBr vf/kdj.k && flfoy U;k;ky; dh xfjek ls lqlTt gS rFkk flfoy U;k;ky; gSA , vkb vkj 1979 ,l lh 855 rFkk 1983 , lh ts 123 ¼mPpre U;k-½ vuqlfjrA 2003 , lh ts 1871 ¼,dy U;k;ihB½ folEerA ¼iSjk 7 ,oa 10
¼5½ flfoy izfØ;k lafgrk] 1908 && /kkjk 115 && ek/;LFke~ vkSj lqyg vf/kfu;e] 1996 && /kkjk 37¼3½ && f}rh; vihy vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 37¼3½ ds v/khu oftZr && flfoy izfØ;k lafgrk lqO;Dr% vioftZr ugha && lafgrk ds v/khu iqujh{k.k dk mipkj miyC/k gSA ¼2002½5 ,l lh lh 510] ¼2002½5 ,l lh lh 520 rFkk ¼1996½2 ,l lh lh 132 vuqlfjrA ¼iSjk 12
¼6½ eksVj ;ku vf/kfu;e] 1988 && /kkjk 173¼3½ && flfoy izfØ;k lafgrk] 1908 && /kkjk 115 && vf/kfu.khZr jde nl gtkj :i, ls de gks rc vihy oftZr && lafgrk dh /kkjk 115 ds v/khu iqujh{k.k oftZr djus dk dksbZ mica/k ugha gksus ds dkj.k ,sls vkns‘kksa ds fo:) iqujh{k.k pykus ;ksx; gSA ¼iSjk 13 ,oa 14
¼7½ flfoy izfØ;k lafgrk] 1908 && /kkjk 115 && iqujh{k.k && O;kfIr lhfer gS && U;k;ky; dk dsoy ;g lek/kku gksuk pkfg, fd ikfjr vkns‘k vf/kdkfjrk ds Hkhrj gSA 2006¼1½ ts ,y ts 135 ¼mPpre U;k-½ vuqlfjrA ¼iSjk 16
¼8½ Hkkjr dk lafo/kku && vuq-226@227 && flfoy izfØ;k lafgrk] 1908 && /kkjk 115 && eksVj ;ku vf/kfu;e] 1988 && /kkjk 168 rFkk 173¼2½ && :-10]000@& ls de dk vf/kfu.kZ; && iqujh{k.k dk mipkj miyC/k && fjV ;kfpdk xzg.k ugha dh tk ldrhA ¼iSjk 20
Jha, J. --1. Awards of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunals for amount less than Rs.10,000/- have been challenged before this Court in the writ petition and the civil revisions because sub-section (2) of section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, bars an appeal against the award of the Claims Tribunal if the amount in dispute is less than Rs.10,000/-.
2. In New India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt. Rafeeka Sultana and others [2001(1) JLJ 1=2000(3) MPLJ 561], the Motor Accidents Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs.1,60,000/- with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of claim till the date of realisation and the Insurance Company assailed this award through a civil revision under section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code. The claimant contended that the Insurance Company cannot challenge the quantum of compensation in an appeal before the High Court because defences of the Insurance Company to a claim have to be confined to the grounds mentioned under section 149(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short "Act"). A Full Bench of this Court held that since under the Act, the Insurance Company cannot file an appeal challenging the quantum of compensation, it cannot file revision under section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code or a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. In view of the judgment of the Full Bench of the High Court in New India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt. Rafeeka Sultana and others (supra), the following substantial question of law has been referred to this Larger Bench for opinion.
"Whether in a case where remedy of appeal is not available under section 173(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, the remedy of revision under section 115 of the CPC or the Constitutional remedy under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India can be invoked to assail an award passed by the Motor Accident Tribunal?"
3. Shri R.P. Agrawal, learned senior advocate for the petitioner Insurance Company submitted that a party cannot be left remediless. If an appeal is barred then aggrieved party has a remedy of revision under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short "CPC") or in the alternative to move this Court to examine the validity and correctness of the award in exercise of its power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution.
4. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company submitted that the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (for short "Tribunal") is a Court subordinate to the High Court and therefore, its orders which are not amenable to appeal are revisable before this Court. He further submitted that the power of the High Court to examine the legality and propriety of award under Article 227 of the Constitution cannot be closed and the Full Bench in the case of New India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Smt. Rafeeka Sultana and others (supra), has over-looked the decision of the apex Court in the case of L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India [AIR 1997 SC 1125]. He submitted that the Full Bench has not laid down the correct law in holding that if an appeal is barred under the Act then it cannot be questioned in revision under section 115 of the CPC or under Article 227 of the Constitution.
5. Shri Agrawal, learned senior advocate for the petitioner Insurance Company further submitted that the Tribunal is a Court subordinate to the High Court and is performing functions of a civil Court and, therefore, awards or orders by the Tribunal are amenable to revisional jurisdiction of the High Court under section 115 of the CPC where remedy of appeal is not available.
6. Shri Umesh Trivedi, learned counsel appeared on behalf of the petitioner-Owner of the vehicle in Civil Revision No.604/2005 to Civil Revision No.209/2005. He submitted that award of Rs.3,000/- has been passed against the owner exonerating the Insurance Company. He challenged the award under section 115 of CPC on the ground that Insurance Company is liable to indemnify the claim. He argued that the Tribunal is a civil Court and subordinate to
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
