ORDER

1. The present revision has been filed by the Insurance Company challenging the award passed by the Claims Tribunal, whereby the Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.36,770/- to the claimant-respondent.

2. The present revision under section 115 of CPC has been filed against the award of Claims Tribunal on the sole ground that after amendment in the Motor Vehicles Act vide Amendment Act of 2019, section 149 has been renumbered as Section 150 and the provision corresponding to section 149(4) does not find place in the amended provision and, therefore, the Claims Tribunal, despite having found the vehicle to be run in breach of policy conditions, has erroneously passed an award against the Insurance Company and granted the liberty of pay and recover.

3. It is contended in this revision that pay and recover after the Amendment Act of 2019 cannot be ordered by the Claims Tribunal and the liability should have been imposed on the owner of the offending vehicle and direction of pay and recover could not have been passed by the Tribunal.

4. When this Court confronted the petitioner with the query that the award in this case is of a very low quantum and the litigation expenses of this case alone may be almost equal to the awarded amount for the petitioner itself apart from the litigation cost to be borne by the respondents in case this revision is entertained, the counsel for the petitioner submitted that since the issue raised is in larger interest and of larger importance, therefore, irrespective of quantum of compensation in this particular case, the Insurance Company has decided to challenge it.

5. The legislature has given the remedy of appeal under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act against awards of Claims Tribunal and as per section 173(2), appeal against an award of Tribunal is barred if the amount in dispute is less than Rs.10,000/- which has been enhanced to Rs.1.00 Lakh by the Amendment Act.

6. The question that whether once the legislature has refused to allow appeal for awards below Rs.1.00 Lakh, the Insurance Company or any other person can file revision against the award, was considered by a Special Bench of five-Judges of High Court in the case of National Insurance Company v. Shrikant Vinod Tiwari and others , 2007 (2) J.L.J. 138. At that relevant point of time, the threshold limit was Rs.10,000/- and the Special Bench came to conclusion that a party cannot be left remediless and since revision is not barred under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, therefore, the revision would lie under section 115 CPC, though on limited grounds. The Special Bench held as under:-

"18. We may further reiterate that for examining the correctness of the award, scope of section 115 CPC is limited and the award passed will not be disturbed unless following grounds are made out by the petitioner:

(i) the award so passed is without jurisdiction or in excess of jurisdiction vested with the Tribunal.

(ii) the award so passed, if allowed to stand would occasion in failure of justice or cause irreparable injury to the party against whom it was made.

Some illustrations wherein the cases under these categories can be examined are as under:

(i) award where insurance policy has not been issued by the Insurance Company.

(ii) Tribunal has recorded a finding that injuries received by the Claimant are not caused during the use or arising out of use of motor vehicle yet compensation is awarded.

(iii) Where owner of the vehicle feels that Insurance Company has been improperly exonerated from payment of compensation.

(iv) Claimant may claim the amount of compensation such as loss of suffering or medical treatment which has not been awarded by the Claims Tribunal though sufficient evidence is available on record."

7. The Special Bench held that revision would not lie at the drop of a hat in routine matter but would lie only in special circumstances. This may be when the award is without jurisdiction or excess of jurisdiction, would