ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LTD Vs. RENU RASTOGI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision has been filed by Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. against an award given by Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal. A preliminary objection has been raised by Mr. Satish Chaturvedi holding brief for Mr. Saurabh Srivastava, counsel for respondent-claimant about its maintainability. I have heard Mr. V.K. Birla, the learned counsel for the applicant insurance company also on this point. His submission is that under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), an appeal is provided against the award but it is not open to the insurance company to challenge therein the quantum of compensation awarded and the scope of challenge in such an appeal is confined to the statutory defences available to the insurance company under section 149 (2) of the Act and there being thus in effect no remedy of appeal the award of the Tribunal is subject to the revisional jurisdiction under section 115, Civil Procedure Code. However, in cases where an application under section 170 of the Act has been granted on account of the fact that the claimant and the person against whom the claim is made have colluded or the person against whom the claim is made has failed to contest, it is open to the insurance company to take all the defences available to the person against whom the claim is made.

(2.) Mr. V.K. Birla, learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant wants to challenge the finding on the point of negligence of the deceased and also on the quantum of compensation and as there was no permission under section 170 of the Act, the appeal is not maintainable and in such a case a revision would lie. Reliance is placed upon a Division Bench judgment of Madhya Pradesh High Court in Sarjubai v. Gurudip Singh, 1994 ACJ 997 (MP), in which it has been held that where the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is shockingly excessive it would be open to the insurance company to prefer a civil revision or a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. It was held that the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal is a court subordinate to the High Court and, therefore, subject to its revisional jurisdiction. Mr. Birla submits that in view of the decision of the Apex Court in Sadhana Lodh v. National Insurance Co. Ltd., 2003 ACJ 505 (SC), it is not available to the insurance company to file a petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India and as such the only remedy available to the insurance company is to prefer a revision.

(3.) Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code as substituted by the Code of Civil Procedure U.P. Amendment Ordinance, 2003, provides that a superior court may revise an order passed in a case decided in an original suit or other proceeding by a subordinate court where no appeal lies against the order. The remedy of revision under section 115, Civil Procedure Code is thus available against orders against which statutory appeal is not provided. An appeal lies under section 173 of the Act against an award and, therefore, on the plain language of section 115, Civil Procedure Code no revision lies. The effect of the scope of the appeal being limited to the defences under section 149 (2) of the Act may now be examined.