Himachal Pradesh High Court
National Insurance Co. Ltd vs Masto Devi & Others on 21 March, 2025
Author: Vivek Singh Thakur
Bench: Vivek Singh Thakur
( 2025:HHC:7756 )
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH,
SHIMLA
Civil Revision No. 6 of 2020
Date of decision: 21st March, 2025
National Insurance Co. Ltd. ...Petitioner.
Versus
Masto Devi & others ...Respondents.
Coram
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting? Yes
For the Petitioner. Mr. Bhunesh Pal, Advocate vice Mr.Anil
Tomar, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Respondents No.1 and 2 proceeded ex-
parte.
Mr. Rupinder Singh, Advocate for
respondent No.3.
Respondent No.4 stands deleted.
Vivek Singh Thakur, Judge (Oral)
This Revision Petition has been preferred by the Insurance Company against order dated 3rd August, 2018 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sirmaur District at Nahan in MACT Petition No.199-N/2 of 2013 titled Masto Devi vs. Ravi Dutt whereby an application under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act (MV Act) along with main claim petition under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, filed for grant of 'no fault liability' to the tune of Rs.50,000/-, has been allowed and 2 ( 2025:HHC:7756 ) petitioner-Insurance Company has been directed to pay Rs.50,000/- to the mother i.e. respondent No.1 Masto Devi being only Class-I heir of her deceased son.
2 Learned counsel for respondent No.4 submits that against an order granting compensation for 'no fault liability' under Section 140 of Motor Vehicles Act, Civil Revision Petition is not maintainable but only appeal is maintainable.
3 Learned counsel for petitioner has claimed that Revision Petition is maintainable. To substantiate his claim, he has placed reliance on Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd vs. Sudip Ranjan Deb and others reported in 2009 ACJ 22 (Gauhati); Gurucharansing Hardayalsing Sethi vs. Narhari Laxman Shinde and others reported in 1997(2) TAC 508 (Bom.); National Insurance Co. Ltd. and another vs. Asha Devi & another reported in 1997(2) T.A.C.513 (MP); Sri Vidya Sagar Singh vs. Shanti Devi and others reported in 1994(2) T.A.C. 295 (Patna); Sarjubai vs. Gurudip Singh and others reported in 1995(1) T.A.C. 114 (M.P.); and New India Assurance Co. Ltd vs. Raghubir and others reported in 1994 ACJ 987 (MP).
4 In Gurucharansing's case, issue was that as to whether the Revision Petition is maintainable against the rejection of application filed for setting aside the ex-parte award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and this judgment is not related to application filed under Section 140 of MV Act. Order passed in an application filed for setting aside ex- 3
( 2025:HHC:7756 ) parte order is not an Award and under Section 173 of MV Act. Appeal has been provided only against an Award. Therefore, this judgment is of no help to the petitioner.
5 Learned counsel for respondent No.4 has placed reliance upon judgment passed by the Supreme Court in Yallwwa (Smt.) and others vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd and another reported in (2007)6 SCC 657 wherein after considering the various earlier judgments of the Supreme Court as well as High Courts, it has been observed and held as under:-
"13. It may be noted that Chapter X of the Act provides for no forum for enforcement of the right under Section 140. The only forum available is in Chapter XII. The right under Section 140 can only be enforced under Section 168 as an award. An appeal, therefore, lies under Section 173 against such an award seeking to enforce the right under Section 140 ......
19. Furthermore, evidently, the amount directed to be paid even in terms of Chapter X of the Act must as of necessity, in the event of non-compliance with directions, has to be recovered in terms of Section 174 of the Act. There is no other provision in the Act which takes care of such a situation. We, therefore, are of the opinion that even when objections are raised by the insurance company in regard to its liability, the Tribunal is required to render a decision upon the issue, which would attain finality and, thus, the same 4 ( 2025:HHC:7756 ) would be an award within the meaning of Section 173 of the Act.
.......
29. In our considered opinion, the said decision does not state the law correctly. In our opinion, an order of the Tribunal awarding compensation under Section 140 of the Act is appealable under Section 173 as it amounts to an award under Section 173."
6. Section 173 of MV Act reads as under:-
"173. Appeals- (1) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (2) any person aggrieved by an award of a Claims Tribunal may, within ninety days from the date of the award, prefer an appeal to the High Court:
Provided that no appeal by the person who is required to pay any amount in terms of such award shall be entertained by the High Court unless he has deposited with it twenty-five thousand rupees or fifty per cent. of the amount so awarded, whichever is less, in the manner directed by the High Court:
Provided further that the High Court may entertain the appeal after the expiry of the said period of ninety days, if it is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from preferring the appeal in time.
(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."5
( 2025:HHC:7756 ) 7 In New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Rafeeka Sultan, 2001 ACJ 648 (MP), a three-Judge Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court has held that revision against an order passed for granting 'no
-fault liability' compensation under Section 140 of MV Act is not maintainable and only appeal under Section 173 MV Act shall be maintainable.
8 In Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Mohiuddin Kureshi alias Md. Moya and other, 1994 ACJ 74, a Division Bench of the Patna High Court; and in Oriental Insurance Company Limited, New Delhi vs. Chitaman and others AIR 1995 Madhya Pradesh 229, a Full Bench (Five-Judge Bench) of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, has taken a similar view. It has been held that determination of compensation under Section 140 of the MV Act is an Award. For assailing an award, appeal has been provided under the MV Act. Provisions of MV Act related to awarding compensation under Sections 140, 163A and 166 of the MV Act are complete Code in itself and in the provisions, no remedy of Revision has been provided to assail an Award, either passed under Section 140 or 163A or 166 of the MV Act. Therefore, revision is not maintainable.
9 Section 173 of MV Act provides an appeal against an award passed by the MACT without differentiating between "award" and "interim 6 ( 2025:HHC:7756 ) award". Therefore, an appeal is maintainable against the award/order in appeal/petition under Section 140, 163-A or 166 of MV Act. 10 The judgments referred by learned counsel for petitioner are judgments passed by different High Courts and these judgments were passed prior to passing of the judgment by the Supreme Court in Yallwwa's case.
11 Article 141 of the Constitution of India provides that law declared by the Supreme Court shall be binding on all Courts within the territory of India.
12 Learned counsel for petitioner has fully conceded to the ratio of law laid down in Yallwwa's case and other judgments of the Supreme Court referred supra.
13 In view of above exposition of law, settled by the Supreme Court, this Revision Petition preferred by the petitioner against order passed under Section 140 of Motor Vehicles Act granting interim compensation for no fault liability is not maintainable.
Accordingly, present petition is dismissed.
(Vivek Singh Thakur),
21st March, 2025 Judge.
(MS)