Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.22 seconds)Section 115 in The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [Entire Act]
Section 170 in The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [Entire Act]
Article 227 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Sarjubai vs Gurudip Singh And Ors. on 2 September, 1994
The decision of Madhya Pradesh High Court in Sarjubai's case, 1994 ACJ 997 (MP), that where the compensation is shockingly excessive the Tribunal's award is liable to challenge under Article 227 of the Constitution of India or in revision is in conflict with the Apex Court decision in Sadhana Lodh. The observations in Sadhana Lodh about availability of the remedy of revision are in reference to cases where no appeal is provided. The reasoning that another remedy can be availed of as the scope of the statutory appeal is limited has not been accepted by the Apex Court as sound.
Section 149 in The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [Entire Act]
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Sadhana Lodh vs National Insurance Company Ltd. & Anr on 24 January, 2003
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.
National Insurance Co. Ltd., ... vs Nicolletta Rohtagi And Ors on 17 September, 2002
4. The reason why in an appeal by the insurance company the grounds that can be taken by it are limited to the defences in Section 149(2) is not anything contained in the language of Section 173 but the fact that in contesting the claim itself the insurance company can take only the defences permissible by Section 149(2). Where, however, permission under Section 170 has been granted the grounds available are all such grounds which are available to the person against whom the claim has been made. Thus, the scope of the appeal by an insurance company would in such a case be as wide as that available to the person against whom the claim has been made. It will be limited in other cases to grounds arising out of the statutory defences available to insurance company vide National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nicolletta Rohtagi, 2002 ACJ 1950 (SC). In this case the Supreme Court held that Section 149, 170 and 173 are part of one scheme and if a different interpretation is given to Section 173 it would go contrary to the scheme and object of the Act. As the limitation on the grounds of challenge to an award in an appeal by the insurer under Section 173 of the Act flows out of the limited defences available to it under Section 149(2) there is no reason why the same limitations should not be read in the revisionary power assuming a revision was maintainable.
Shankar Ramchandra Abhyankar vs Krishnaji Dattatreya Bapat on 16 April, 1969
The jurisdiction in revision is after all a part of the general appellate jurisdiction of the High Court vide Shankar Ramchandra Abhyankar v. Krishnaji Dattatraya Bapat, AIR 1970 SC 1. The limitations imposed by Section 149(2) would be equally applicable to a revision as they are to an appeal and, therefore, the ground of excessiveness of the quantum of compensation or the negligence of the victim of the accident which are not defences available under Section 149(2) cannot furnish a justification for the view that as an appeal is not maintainable against these findings a revision would lie. The availability of a right of appeal and the scope of the appeal are different matters. Undisputedly an appeal lies against an award under Section 173 of the Act. In Sadhana Lodh, 2003 ACJ 505 (SC), the Apex Court held that the right of appeal is a statutory right and where the law provides remedy by filing an appeal on limited grounds, the grounds of challenge cannot be enlarged by filing a petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India on the premise that the insurer has limited grounds available for challenging the award given by the Tribunal. A revision too is a creature of the statute. On the same reasoning as has been adopted by the Apex Court in Sadhana Lodh, it can be held that the grounds of challenge cannot be enlarged by invoking the jurisdiction of the court in revision and, therefore, the fact that the scope of the appeal is limited to the statutory defences cannot be a ground to hold that a revision is maintainable.
1