Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Scanned Judgements…!
References:- ["National Insurance Company Ltd. VS Hijam Ningol Khomdram Ongbi Mema Devi - 2012 0 Supreme(Gau) 335"]- ["Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. VS Krishna Kakati - Gauhati"]- ["Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. VS Smriti Bala Das - 2010 0 Supreme(Gau) 610"]- ["Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. VS Hiralal Das - 2010 0 Supreme(Gau) 604"]- ["National Insurance Company Ltd. VS Amullya Chandra Das - 2010 0 Supreme(Gau) 616"]- ["Ranjit Saha VS Branch Manager, New India Assurance Company Ltd. - Tripura"]- ["Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. VS Ranjit Roy - Gauhati"]
Motor vehicle accidents often lead to complex legal battles over compensation awards from Motor Accident Claims Tribunals (MACT). A common question arises: whether petition dismissed after MACT tribunal award is maintainable under Writ petition. If your revision or challenge to a MACT award has been dismissed, can you directly approach the High Court via a writ under Articles 226 or 227 of the Constitution? This post breaks down the legal principles, key judgments, and practical advice to help you navigate this issue.
Note: This article provides general information based on judicial precedents and is not a substitute for professional legal advice. Consult a qualified lawyer for your specific case.
Generally, a writ petition challenging a MACT award or its dismissal is not maintainable due to the availability of a statutory appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Courts consistently hold that parties must exhaust this remedy first. The right of appeal is a statutory right to the parties 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. National Insurance Company Ltd. VS Hijam Ningol Khomdram Ongbi Mema Devi - 2012 0 Supreme(Gau) 335National Insurance Company Ltd. VS Amullya Chandra Das - 2010 0 Supreme(Gau) 616Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. VS Hiralal Das - 2010 0 Supreme(Gau) 604Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. VS Smriti Bala Das - 2010 0 Supreme(Gau) 610
This principle stems from landmark Supreme Court rulings like Sadhna Lodh v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. (2003) 3 SCC 524 and Bijoy Kumar Dugar v. Bidya Dhar Dutta (2006) 3 SCC 242, which emphasize that writ jurisdiction cannot bypass statutory appeals, especially for insurers limited to grounds under Section 149(2) MV Act (e.g., no license, permit violation). National Insurance Company Ltd. VS Hijam Ningol Khomdram Ongbi Mema Devi - 2012 0 Supreme(Gau) 335National Insurance Company Ltd. VS Amullya Chandra Das - 2010 0 Supreme(Gau) 616Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. VS Hiralal Das - 2010 0 Supreme(Gau) 604Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. VS Smriti Bala Das - 2010 0 Supreme(Gau) 610
In one case, a writ directly challenging the award's quantum or interest was dismissed: The writ petition filed by the Insurance Company was not maintainable against the order of MACT... Consequently, the writ petition is dismissed. National Insurance Company Ltd. VS Hijam Ningol Khomdram Ongbi Mema Devi - 2012 0 Supreme(Gau) 335National Insurance Company Ltd. VS Amullya Chandra Das - 2010 0 Supreme(Gau) 616Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. VS Hiralal Das - 2010 0 Supreme(Gau) 604Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. VS Smriti Bala Das - 2010 0 Supreme(Gau) 610
If the petition dismissed after MACT tribunal award refers to a revision petition, it's equally problematic. Revisions under Section 115 CPC are confined to jurisdictional errors or material irregularities, not merits-based challenges against appealable awards. The impugned judgment and award is an appealable order against which appeal could be filed under Section 173 of the M.V. Act. This Court is of clear view that the present revision petition is not maintainable. National Insurance Company Ltd. VS Hijam Ningol Khomdram Ongbi Mema Devi - 2012 0 Supreme(Gau) 335National Insurance Company Ltd. VS Amullya Chandra Das - 2010 0 Supreme(Gau) 616Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. VS Hiralal Das - 2010 0 Supreme(Gau) 604Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. VS Smriti Bala Das - 2010 0 Supreme(Gau) 610
Courts reinforce this: None of the grounds mentioned in the present revision petition... comes under the limited grounds for filing revision mentioned in Section 115 of the CPC. National Insurance Company Ltd. VS Hijam Ningol Khomdram Ongbi Mema Devi - 2012 0 Supreme(Gau) 335 A writ against such a dismissed revision fails for the same reason—it circumvents the appeal route. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. VS Smriti Bala Das - 2010 0 Supreme(Gau) 610
Related precedents confirm MACT tribunals are not courts subordinate for Section 115 CPC revisions in review contexts. Civil Revision Petitions against MACT review orders were dismissed, clarifying: The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT) is not a Court subordinate to the High Court for the purpose of Section 115 CPC. SMT. B. V. NAGARATHNA VS SRI. BASANAGOUDA - 2004 Supreme(Kar) 151
Attempts to review MACT awards fare no better. There is no any provision for review under the MV Act; only appeals lie. In a case where a review was filed post-award, the tribunal held: there is no any provision for review and against the order of Tribunal only appeal is maintainable. M/s Shrikishan & Company through Proprietor, Sushil Agrawal VS Vijay Kumar Patel S/o Shri Gendram Patel - 2016 Supreme(Chh) 259
A writ under Article 227 against the review dismissal was also rejected: when any forum is available... petitioner has to justify why despite clear provision for appeal against the award he has chosen the course of writ petition under Article 227. M/s Shrikishan & Company through Proprietor, Sushil Agrawal VS Vijay Kumar Patel S/o Shri Gendram Patel - 2016 Supreme(Chh) 259 Even after years, delayed reviews without condonation were dismissed, underscoring appeals as the exclusive path. M/s Shrikishan & Company through Proprietor, Sushil Agrawal VS Vijay Kumar Patel S/o Shri Gendram Patel - 2016 Supreme(Chh) 259
Lok Adalat awards face similar scrutiny: review petition was not maintainable and only remedy... was to file writ petition which stands dismissed. DALBIR SINGH AND ANR Vs SANT SINGH AND ORS
This aligns with the broader alternative remedy doctrine, barring writs where statutes provide efficacious relief. Parties cannot take any plea other than those provided under Section 149(2) via writ. National Insurance Company Ltd. VS Hijam Ningol Khomdram Ongbi Mema Devi - 2012 0 Supreme(Gau) 335National Insurance Company Ltd. VS Amullya Chandra Das - 2010 0 Supreme(Gau) 616Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. VS Hiralal Das - 2010 0 Supreme(Gau) 604Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. VS Smriti Bala Das - 2010 0 Supreme(Gau) 610
In ex-parte award set-aside refusals, no appeals lie under Order 43 Rule 1 CPC, allowing writs under Article 227—but only there, not for merits. No appeal is maintainable against the order declining the setting aside of an ex-parte award... aggrieved person is entitled to file a writ petition under Article 227. Mangla Jat VS Raju - 2001 Supreme(Raj) 1383
Writs are possible in exceptional circumstances, such as:- Collusion between claimant and insured/insurer, preventing insurer from contesting under Section 149(2).- Non-impleadment or denial of Section 170 permission to defend on merits.
In a situation where there is collusion between the claimant and the insurer or the insured does not contest the claim... it is open to the insurer to seek permission of MACT to contest... If permission is granted... it is open to the insurer to file an appeal against the award of MACT on merits. National Insurance Company Ltd. VS Hijam Ningol Khomdram Ongbi Mema Devi - 2012 0 Supreme(Gau) 335National Insurance Company Ltd. VS Amullya Chandra Das - 2010 0 Supreme(Gau) 616Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. VS Hiralal Das - 2010 0 Supreme(Gau) 604Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. VS Smriti Bala Das - 2010 0 Supreme(Gau) 610
Absent these, no exception applies. Documented jurisdictional errors might justify writs, but merits disputes do not.
Other scenarios, like withdrawn claims without merits, allow fresh petitions since CPC doesn't strictly apply to MACT's welfare-oriented proceedings. The dismissal of the claim petition, otherwise than on merits, has not been held to be a bar to fresh petition. Subhadra Devi VS Surender Kumar - 2024 Supreme(P&H) 390
To avoid dismissal:1. File appeal under Section 173 MV Act within 90 days—stick to Section 149(2) unless Section 170 applies.2. Avoid writs/revisions on merits; they invite rejection.3. Document exceptions (e.g., collusion) explicitly if pursuing writs.4. For reviews or ex-parte set-asides, confirm no statutory bar exists.
In dismissal cases with liberty for fresh claims (e.g., respondent substitution), file anew rather than appeal futilely. Mohinder Singh VS Onkar Nath - 2018 Supreme(P&H) 651
Understanding these nuances can save time and costs in accident claims. Stay informed, but always tailor to your facts with expert guidance.
#MACTClaims #WritPetition #MotorAccidentLaw
This is an appeal against the award dated 11.02.2011, passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Patiala, whereby claim petition filed by appellants/claimants have been dismissed. 2. ... The dismissal of the claim petition, otherwise than on merits, has not been held to be a bar to fresh petition, irrespective of the fact whether the first petition was dismissed as withdrawn or was dismissed in default. .......
Thereafter, against the said award the non-applicant No.2/appellant filed a review petition before the concerned Tribunal on 09-04-2015. ... would be no any review for merits of said award passed by the Tribunal, the applicant has not filed any application for correction of procedural part and as there is no any provision for review and against the order of Tribunal only appeal is maintainable. ... No. 1/2016 is hereby dismissed as not main....
maintainable. ... Thereafter, against the said award the non-applicant No.2/appellant filed a review petition before the concerned Tribunal on 09-04- ... The award passed on 05-07-2012 and the appellant preferred the review petition filed before the concerned Tribunal on p style="position:
In the present case, award was passed by Lok Adalat and review petition was filed before learned Tribunal. I am of the considered view that review before learned Tribunal was not maintainable. ... In view of the afore-cited judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court, the review petition was not maintainable and only remedy with appellants was to file writ petition which stands dismissed. 13. ... It was th....
petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution by an insurer challenging the award of MACT is not maintainable. ... Consequently, the writ petition is dismissed. The award of MACT granting compensation to the claimants along with interest is fully justified and it is accordingly maintained. The parties are left to bear their own costs. ... 9. ... Ltd. & Ors : 2006 (Supp) 1 GLT 231 contended that this Court(Division Bench) had a....
I do not find any reason to treat this civil misc. appeal as a writ petition for the reason that the present appellant and applicant has a remedy to file a writ petition even now and is at liberty to file a fresh writ petition instead of getting the present misc. appeal treated as a writ petition. ... With the above said observations, the civil misc. appeal is dismissed as not maintainable.Appeal dismiss....
When the said revision petition was dismissed inter alia holding not to be maintainable vide judgment and order dated 20.1.2005, this present writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India is filed challenging the same award, seeking to invoke the writ jurisdiction of the High Court ... award given by the Tribunal. ... In view of the above discussion, this writ petition stands re....
maintainable and is hereby dismissed. ... petition was not maintainable the learned Judge with the consent of the parties modified the award. ... of the Tribunal. ... In the result, this writ petition is not p style
and accordingly they are dismissed as not maintainable. ... the MACT passed in Review Petitions are maintainable. ... Review Petition Nos. 54 and 55 of 2002 were preferred by the Insurance Company before the MACT under Order 457, Rule 1, CPC seeking review of the judgment and award passed in MVC No. 639 of 1998 and MVC No. 640 of 1998, allowing the claim petition of the respondent-herein filed under Section 166 of Motor ... by playing fraud, in such ....
In the result, this writ petition is not maintainable and is hereby dismissed. ... Paras 9 and 10 of the judgment passed in CRP which have been quoted herein above clearly indicate that after holding that the writ petition was not maintainable the learned Judge with the consent of the parties modified the award. ... Thereafter, the MACT has only passed an award for Rs.65,455/-. He has not said a word about the amou....
(3) Whether the writ petition is maintainable to quash the Award enquiry notice after passing final Award? If so, would non-compliance vitiate the impugned proceedings and liable to be set aside?
In the circumstances, award of the Tribunal was confirmed and the writ petition was dismissed. The said award of the Tribunal was assailed by the appellant-Corporation in Writ Petition No. 15427/2005 (L-KSRTC) wherein it was found that for unauthorised absence from duty for a period of three months, dismissal from service was disproportionate penalty. We also affirm the reinstatement of the workman with reduction in pay by two increments which is with cumulative effect which is in substance a reduction in salary having a permanent effect.
Against the said dismissal, the present appeal has been filed. 6. In the earlier exparte award, the Insurance Company was exonerated on the ground that the claimants were not able to prove that the truck was insured with respondent No.3. The Tribunal vide award dated 15.02.2006 dismissed the claim petition being not maintainable in the form it was. Liberty was given to the claimants to file fresh petition against the newly impleaded respondents.
In the present case, as the claim petition related to the death of the insured himself and as it was filed against his own insurer and driver, the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to entertain such a claim as the deceased was not a ‘third party’ within the meaning of sub-Section(1) of Section 165 of the Act. The Tribunal should have dismissed the claim petition as not maintainable. The impugned Judgment and award is set aside; the claim petition in M.V.C.
For the reasons stated above, the writ petition is dismissed and the Award of the Tribunal is affirmed. Consequently connected the Miscellaneous Petition is also closed.
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
