Khare, C.J.I. -- Leave granted.

The appellant's son, aged 24 years and drawing a sum of Rs. 4,000/per month, died in a motor vehicle accident. The appellant herein filed a claim petition before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal"). The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 3,50,000 as compensation. Aggrieved, the insurer, who is Respondent 1 herein, filed a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India before the Guwahati High Court. A learned Single Judge of the High Court dismissed the writ petition. Aggrieved, the insurer preferred a letters patent appeal before the Division Bench of the High Court. Before the High Court, the claimant took an objection that since petition under Articles 226/227 is not maintainable, therefore, the appeal is totally misconceived and the same deserves dismissal on that ground alone. However, the Division bench of the High Court, after overruling the objection allowed the appeal preferred by the insurer and reduced the compensation from Rs. 3,50,000 to Rs. 3,00,000. It is against the said judgment the present appeal has been filed by way of special leave petition.

Learned counsel appearing for the appellant urged that in view of the fact that under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") a remedy by way of appeal to the High Court is available to the insurer against an award given by the Tribunal, therefore, the filing of a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution was misconceived and deserved dismissal and the High Court ought not to have entertained and decided the writ petition on merits. We find merit in the submission.

It is not disputed that under section 173 of the Act, an insurer has right to file an appeal before the High Court on limited grounds available under section 149(2) of the Act. However, in a situation where there is a collusion between the claimant and the insured or the insured does not contest the claim and further, if the Tribunal does not imp-lead the insurance company to contest the claim, in such a situation it is open to an insurer to seek permission of the Tribunal to contest the claim on the ground available to the insured or to a person against whom a claim has been made. If permission is granted and the insurer is allowed to contest the claim on merit, in that case it is open to the insurer to file an appeal against the award of the Tribunal on merits. Thus, in such a situation, the insurer can question the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

However, learned counsel for the respondent argued that since an insurer has limited grounds available under section 173 of the Act, it is open to an insurer to file a petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution.

The right of appeal is a statutory right and where the law provides remedy by filing an appeal on limited grounds, the grounds of challenge cannot be enlarged by filing a petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution on the premise that the insurer has limited grounds available for challenging the award given by the Tribunal. Section 149(2) of the Act limits the insurer to file an appeal on those enumerated grounds and the appeal being a product of the statute it is not open to an insurer to take any plea other than those provided under section 149(2) of the Act (see National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nicolletta Rohtagi) [(2002) 7 SCC 456 : 2002 SCC (Cri) 1788] This being the legal position, the petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution by the insurer was wholly misconceived. Where a statutory right to file an appeal has been provided for, it is not open to the High Court to entertain a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution. Even if where a remedy by way of an appeal has not been provided for against the order and judgment of a District Judge, the remedy available to the aggrieved person is to file a revision before the High Court under section 115 of