Madhya Pradesh High Court
Netram vs Rajendra Singh Yadav on 21 November, 2016
1 M. A. No. 1096/ 2016
(Netram Vs. Rajendra Singh Yadav & Others)
21.11.2016
Shri R.P. Gupta, learned counsel for the appellant.
Heard learned counsel for the appellant on the
objection raised by the Registry that since the claim
amount awarded by the Tribunal is only Rs.6,000/-,
therefore, as per the judgment of the Special Bench in
the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd., Gwalior Vs.
Shrikant & Others as reported in 2007(2) JLJ 138, appeal
is not maintainable as award is less than Rs.10,000/-.
Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted
that ratio of the judgment in the case of National
Insurance Co. Ltd., Gwalior (Supra) is not applicable to
his case because present appeal has been filed by the
claimant. Further, the claim before the Tribunal was
Rs.15,70,000/- and if the amount awarded is Rs.6,000/-,
then respondents were debarred from filing an appeal
and not the claimant in terms of the provisions of Section 173(2) of the Motor Vehicle Act. Learned counsel has further submitted that in fact Section 173(2) of the Motor Vehicle Act provides that no appeal is maintainable against any award of Claims Tribunal, if the amount in dispute in the appeal is less than Rs.10,000/-, therefore, it has been held that where the remedy of appeal is not available under Section 173(2) of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, aggrieved party has a remedy of Revision under Section 115 of C.P.C.
Learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on the judgment of High Court of Himachal Pradesh at Shimla in the matter of Pala Ram Vs. Punjab Roadways & Another as reported in 2007 ACJ 983, 2 M. A. No. 1096/ 2016 (Netram Vs. Rajendra Singh Yadav & Others) wherein it has been held that appeal will be barred if the amount claimed is less than Rs.10,000/-.
In the present case, appellant had since claimed a sum of Rs.15,70,000/- before the Tribunal and was awarded only a sum of Rs.6,000/-, therefore, the dispute is with regard to Rs.15,70,000/- (-) Rs.6,000/- i.e. Rs.15,64,000/-. Thus, the disputed amount in the appeal filed by the claimant is the enhanced claim in the appeal or in case where the claim petition has been dismissed, the total amount claimed in the claim petition. It is not the amount awarded which will determine whether appeal is maintainable under Section 173(2) or not, therefore, the objection was rejected.
Similarly, in the case of Ghanshyam Vs. Additional District Judge (Fast Track) No.4, M.A.C.T. Cases, Jodhpur & Others as reported in 2009 ACJ 1946, a Bench of Rajasthan High Court has held that it is not the award that is referred to in Section 173(2) of the Motor Vehicle Act, but the amount in dispute and therefore, if the amount in dispute is more than Rs.10,000/-, the appeal is maintainable.
Even otherwise the judgment in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd., Gwalior (Supra) categorically holds that-
"High Court shall not, under this Section, follow or reverse any order made, or any order deciding an issue, in the course of a suit or other proceeding except where:
a) the order, if it had been made in favour of the party applying for revision, would have finally disposed of the suit or other proceedings; or
b) the order, if allowed to stand, would occasion a failure of justice or cause irreparable injury to the party against whom 3 M. A. No. 1096/ 2016 (Netram Vs. Rajendra Singh Yadav & Others) it was made."
Thus, there are limitations in Revision and in the light of those limitations, as mentioned in Para-18 of the judgment in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd., Gwalior (Supra), wherein it has been held that-
"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."
In the present case, looking to the limitations in the Revision and the fact that the purpose of provisions contained in Section 173(2) of the Motor Vehicle Act, is to discourage appeals by the owner, driver and the insurer for petty amounts. It cannot be said that a claimant can be rendered remedyless, therefore, if the objection is not overruled, then it will amount to miscarriage of justice, therefore, the objection pointed- out by the Registry is overruled. In the result, appeal is maintainable.
(Vivek Agarwal) Judge @PK