Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(HP) 7785
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Ajay Mohan Goel, J
National Insurance Company Limited – Appellant
Versus
Ashiq Ali and others – Respondent
CMPMO No. 401 of 2019
For the Appellant: Mr. Pritam Singh Chandel
For the Respondents: Mr. Servedaman Rathor
Statutory appeal bars under the Motor Vehicles Act cannot be circumvented via Article 227, but do not impede assailing of other awards from the same incident.
Headnote:(A) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Section 173(2) - Appeal against award of Claims Tribunal - The petitioner Insurance Company faces a statutory bar on appeal as the award amount is below prescribed limit of Rs.1.00 Lac - Petition filed under Article 227 found not maintainable as it circumvents the statutory provision - Declared that dismissal does not impede the petitioner from assailing other awards not falling under statutory bar. (Paras 2-6)
(B) Jurisdiction - The court emphasizes that it cannot allow indirect challenges to awards when direct appeals are barred - Upholding the principle that res-judicata applies to awards under the same accident with differing amounts. (Paras 4-5)
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. the court discusses jurisdiction and indirect challenges. (Para 4) |
| 2. observation on the implications for future awards from the same incident. (Para 5) |
227 of the Constitution of India.
4. This Court is of the considered view that when the Motor Vehicles Act , 1988, which is a special Act and the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal is a creation whereof, specifically bars appeals in certain cases against the awards passed by learned Tribunal,u taking into consideration the pecuniary amount invoolved, then what cannot be done directly, cannot be alloweCd to be done indirectly, by permitting the aggrieved party to challenge the award under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
5. At this stage, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the reason as to why this petition has been filed is that there are other awards arising out of the same accident wherein the amount is in excess of Rs.1.00 Lac and if this award attains finality, then it would be difficult for the petitioner to assail other awards on merit, as the same will act as res-
judicata.
6. This Court is of the considered view that because there is a statutory bar under Section 173(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act , debarring the aggrieved party from assailing the award in terms of the amount involved therein, this bar cannot preclude the aggrieved party from assailing other awards, may be arising out of the same accident, wherein the amount involved is more than that is provided in Section 173(2) of the Act. The non-maintainability of appeals in the awards like the present one, can ube permitted to act as res-judicata because if this is permoitted to happen, then it will frustrate the cause of justiceC and take a valuable right of appeal which stands conferred upon an aggrieved party under the Motor Vehicles Act . Therefore, though, this Court is dismissing this petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India as being not maintainable, however, it is observed that dismissal of this petition and further the bar in terms of Section 173(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act in the way of the petitioner-Insurance Company in filing the appeal against the award in issue shall not act as an impediment in the way of the Insurance Company in assailing other awards, which are not hit by bar of Section
173(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act , in accordance with law. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, stand disposed of accordingly.
