SANDHYA MONDAL Vs. ALOKE CHANDRA PODDAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -This revisional application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is at the instance of claimants of compensation under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ("Act") and is directed against Order dated March 16, 1993 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, 6th court, Alipore in M.A.C.C. No. 165 of 1991 thereby awarding compensation of Rs. 25,000/- in favour of the petitioners against the owner of vehicle in terms of section 140 of the Act and dismissing the proceeding against insurance company.

(2.) In my view, an order of compensation in terms of section 140 of the Act is an "Award" within the meaning of section 173 thereof and as such this revisional application should be succeed in view of existence of an efficacious alternative remedy.

(3.) Mr. Roy, the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners has vehemently contended that an order passed in terms of section 140 of the Act is not an "Award" within the meaning of Chapter XII of the Act and as such the same is not appealable. In support of such contention Mr. Roy has relied upon the following decisions :- (a) Gaya Prasad and Ors. v. Suresh Kumar and Ors. reported in 1992(2) AJR 588 (M.P.), (b) State of Assam v. Pranesh Debnath and Others reported in 1994(2) AJR 171 (Gau), (c) Amita Baghi v. Tejwinder Singh and Another reported in 1996(1) AJR 161 (P.H.).