IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR-6974-2017 (O&M)

Date of decision: 10.11.2025 Hardam Singh and another ...Petitioners Versus Mokham Singh and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS BAHL Present: Mr. Mandeep Singh Dhaliwal, Advocate for the petitioners.

Mr. Amit Bansal, Advocate for Mr. Ashe Kumar Goyal, Advocate for respondent No.1.

Ms. Vedika Puri, Advocate and Mr. Vipul Sharma, Advocate for Mr. Paul S. Saini, Advocate for respondent No.2.

****

VIKAS BAHL, J. (ORAL)

1. This is a revision petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the award dated 27.02.2017 (Annexure P-1) passed by the MACT, Sangrur, vide which the Tribunal had awarded a sum of Rs.7000/- along with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum as compensation in favour of the claimant-respondent No.1.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that although the provision of Section 173(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the MV Act') 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 (at the relevant time, it was Rs.10,000/- as the award in the present case had been passed on 27.02.2017 whereas the amendment in Section 173(2) of the MV Act increasing the amount from Rs.10,000/- to Rs.1,00,000/- was made by the Act No.32 of 2019 w.e.f., 01.04.2022) but the said section does not bar from filing a revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. It is further submitted that thus, the present revision petition is maintainable.

3. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of “Bharti AXA General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Sahab Singh and others” passed in CR-6131-2016, decided on 19.09.2016, 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 prohibits 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. It was further observed that however there was no bar for the claimant to claim enhancement of awarded compensation in the said situation. The relevant portion of the said judgment is reproduced as under: -

“I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, appraised the paper book and of the view that the revision petition filed at the instance of the insurance company is not maintainable when it is statutorily barred from not filing the same under Section 173(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. For the sake of brevity, Section 173(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act reads as under:-

“No appeal shall lie against any award of a Claims Tribunal if the amount in dispute in the appeal is less than ten thousand rupees.”

Plain and simple reading of sub-section 2 of Section 173 prohibits any person to challenge the Award if the amount of compensation is less than ten thousand rupees. Even the Legislature in its wisdom also amended provisions of Section 102 of the Code of Civil Procedure restricting the maintainability of second appeal where the subject matter of the original suit is for recovery of money not exceeding Rs.25,000/-. In case, revisions are permitted to be entertained then in all the suits having amount less than Rs25,000/-, the Courts would be flooded with the revision petitions. Once statutory provisions prohibits the filing of the statutory appeal, the affected party cannot be permitted to circumvent the statutory provisions of law by invoking the superintending power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The scope of superintending power has been deliberated/pondered upon by the Hon