[Cites 10, Cited by 0]
Madhya Pradesh High Court
Tata Aig Gen. Ins. Co. Ltd vs Jagdish Prasad Ahirwar on 6 April, 2026
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:26852
1 CR-75-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK JAIN
ON THE 6 th OF APRIL, 2026
CIVIL REVISION No. 75 of 2026
TATA AIG GEN. INS. CO. LTD
Versus
JAGDISH PRASAD AHIRWAR AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Tejvinder Singh Lamba - Advocate for the petitioner.
ORDER
The present revision has been filed by the insurance company challenging
the award passed by the Claims Tribunal whereby the Tribunal has awarded
compensation of ₹67,150/- to the claimant-respondent.
2. The present revision under Section 115 of CPC has been filed against
the award of Claims Tribunal on two grounds. Firstly that the owner and driver
were one and the same person and in such circumstances, pay and recover should
not have been ordered by the Claims Tribunal in view of the judgment of this
Court in MA No. 125/2015 (ICICI Lombard General Insurance versus Nanki and
others) so also in case of Dhirendra Singh Sengar Vs. Gopi Singh Kalicharan
(MA No. 497 of 1999- Gwalior Bench).
3. The second ground raised is that the vehicle was being run in breach of
policy condition that has duly been found proved by the Claims
Tribunal. Therefore, the accident having taken place after the amendment Act of
2019, the Tribunal could not have passed award against the insurance company by
granting the liberty of 'pay and recover'.
4. It is contended in this revision that pay and recover after the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:26852
2 CR-75-2026
Amendment Act of 2019 cannot be ordered by the Claims Tribunal and the
liability should have been imposed on the owner of the offending vehicle and
direction of pay and recover could not have been passed by the Tribunal.
5. When this Court confronted the petitioner with the query that the award
in this case is of a very low quantum and the litigation expenses of this case alone
may be almost equal to the awarded amount for the petitioner itself apart from the
litigation cost to be borne by the respondents in case this revision is entertained,
the counsel for the petitioner submitted that since the issue raised is in larger
interest and of larger importance, therefore, irrespective of quantum of
compensation in this particular case, the Insurance Company has decided to
challenge it.
6. The legislature has given the remedy of appeal under Section 173 of the
Motor Vehicles Act against awards of Claims Tribunal and as per Section 173(2),
appeal against an award of Tribunal is barred if the amount in dispute is less than
Rs.10,000/- which has been enhanced to Rs.1.00 Lakh by the Amendment Act.
7. The question that whether once the legislature has refused to allow
appeal for awards below Rs.1.00 Lakh, the Insurance Company or any other
person can file revision against the award, was considered by a Special Bench of
five-Judges of High Court in the case of National Insurance Company v. Shrikant
Vinod Tiwari and others , 2007 (2) J.L.J. 138 . At that relevant point of time, the
threshold limit was Rs.10,000/- and the Special Bench came to conclusion that a
party cannot be left remediless and since revision is not barred under the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988, therefore, the revision would lie under Section 115 CPC,
though on limited grounds. The Special Bench held as under:-
"18. We may further reiterate that for examining the
correctness of the award, scope of Section 115 CPC is
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:26852
3 CR-75-2026
limited and the award passed will not be disturbed unless
following grounds are made out by the petitioner:
(i) the award so passed is without jurisdiction or in excess of
jurisdiction vested with the Tribunal.
(ii) the award so passed, if allowed to stand would occasion
in failure of justice or cause irreparable injury to the party
against whom it was made.
Some illustrations wherein the cases under these categories
can be examined are as under:
(i) award where insurance policy has not been
issued by the Insurance Company.
(ii) Tribunal has recorded a finding that injuries
received by the Claimant are not caused during
the use or arising out of use of motor vehicle yet
compensation is awarded.
(iii) Where owner of the vehicle feels that
Insurance Company has been improperly
exonerated from payment of compensation.
(iv) Claimant may claim the amount of
compensation such as loss of suffering or medical
treatment which has not been awarded by the
Claims Tribunal though sufficient evidence is
available on record."
8. The Special Bench held that revision would not lie at the drop of a hat
in routine matter but would lie only in special circumstances. This may be when
the award is without jurisdiction or excess of jurisdiction, would occasion any
failure of justice or cause irreparable injury to the aggrieved party, where the
insurance policy was not issued by the Insurance Company, when despite finding
that the injuries are not relatable to the motor vehicle yet compensation is
awarded, where the owner has been cast upon liability by exonerating the
Insurance Company or where the claimant may claim the quantum to be at lower
side.
9. The Special Bench did not grant any liberty to the Insurance Company
to file revisions as a matter of course in place of appeal which has been
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:26852
4 CR-75-2026
specifically barred by the Legislature. No doubt, the contention of learned counsel
for the petitioner Insurance Company has substance that since the legal issue is
involved in the matter of interpretation of amended Section 150 of the Act of
1988, therefore, the Insurance Company has filed revision. This ground would
have impressed this Court only if it was the only case in which this legal issue had
arisen and was required to be decided by this Court only. The learned counsel for
the Insurance Company was not in a position to dispute that a number of appeals
have been filed before this Court in the matter of interpretation of Section 150 and
number of litigations are pending in that matter not only before this High Court
but before other High Courts, and also before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and,
therefore, it was not a case where if the award went unchallenged, the legal issue
would have been settled against the Insurance Company. Nor it is a case where to
get the legal issue settled, it was obligatory for the Company to have invoked the
revisional jurisdiction of this Court in which case it could have been said in terms
of paragraph 18(ii) of judgment of the Special Bench that the award would cause
failure of justice or irreversible injury to the party against whom it has been made.
It is not even a case of fraud, or of false implication, where the award if
unchallenged, can be said to occasion failure of justice.
10. The Punjab and Haryana High Court recently in the case of Nirbhai
Singh and another vs. Darshan Singh @ Darshan Singh and others, reported in
2025 SCC OnLine P & H 12450 has heavily deprecated the practice of filing
revisions or petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution of India while holding
that when statutory provisions prohibit filing of the statutory appeal, affected party
cannot be permitted to circumvent statutory provisions of law by invoking the
power of superintendence and accordingly the revision petition was held to be not
maintainable. The Punjab and Haryana High Court held as under:-
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:26852
5 CR-75-2026
"3. Section 173(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
(hereinafter referred to as 'the MV Act') stood amended
w.e.f. 01.04.2022 and reads as under:
"(2) No appeal shall lie against any award of a
Claims Tribunal if the amount in dispute in the
appeal is less than one lakh rupees."
4. A perusal of the above would show that the amount "ten
thousand" rupees has been replaced by the amount "one
lakh" and admittedly the amount of compensation awarded
in the present case is less than one lakh rupees.
5. In the case of Bharti AXA General Insurance Company
Ltd. Vs. Sahab Singh & Ors. [CR-6131-2016 decided on
19.09.2016], a Coordinate Bench of this Court 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 prohibit 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."
11. In view of the aforesaid legal position as discussed by this Court
above, it is clear that though the statutory mandate bars any challenge to the award
which is less than Rs.1.00 Lakh, but since it has been held by a Special Bench of
this Court in case of National Insurance Company Limited (supra) that in certain
circumstances revision can lie and this Court has already reached a conclusion
above that in the present case though a legal question of larger importance does
arise, but since that question has already been raised in a number of matters before
this Court and other High Courts and before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India,
therefore, it was not a case where despite small quantum being involved in the
matter, any irreparable loss would have been caused to the Insurance Company by
not challenging the award. The quantum in the present case is so less that the total
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:26852
6 CR-75-2026
cost of litigation of this revision may be equal, if not more than the amount of
award which will be incurred by the Insurance Company alone and taking into
consideration the litigation cost to be incurred by the opposite party, the total
litigation cost in the present case would far surpass the financial value of the
award.
12. Therefore, this Court declines to entertain the present revision by
leaving the legal issues open which have already been raised by the Insurance
Company in various other cases.
13. With the aforesaid observations, admission is declined. The Revision
is dismissed.
14. The petitioner-Insurer is granted liberty to get this revision restored in
case any appeal/revision for enhancement is filed by the claimants.
(VIVEK JAIN)
JUDGE
nks
