S.B.I General Insurance Company Limited vs Chavilal Sahu

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:46965
1 CR-1076-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR

BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK JAIN
st
ON THE 1 OF JULY, 2026
CIVIL REVISION No. 1076 of 2025
S.B.I GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED
Versus
CHAVILAL SAHU AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Abhay Kesharwani - 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 Rs.23,469/- to the claimant-respondent.
2. The present revision under Section 115 of C.P.C. has been filed
against the award of Claims Tribunal on the sole ground that after
amendment in the Motor Vehicles Act vide Amendment Act of 2019,
Section 149 has been renumbered as Section 150 and the provision
corresponding to Section 149(4) does not find place in the amended
provision and, therefore, the Claims Tribunal, despite having found the
vehicle to be run in breach of policy conditions, has erroneously passed an
award against the Insurance Company and granted the liberty of pay and
recover.
3. It is contended in this revision that pay and recover after the
Amendment Act of 2019 cannot be ordered by the Claims Tribunal and the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: KRISHNA SINGH
Signing time: 7/2/2026
11:34:52 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:46965
2 CR-1076-2025
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.
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. 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
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: KRISHNA SINGH
Signing time: 7/2/2026
11:34:52 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:46965
3 CR-1076-2025
Special Bench held as under:-

"18. We may further reiterate that for examining the
correctness of the award, scope of Section 115 CPC is 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."
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: KRISHNA SINGH
Signing time: 7/2/2026
11:34:52 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:46965
4 CR-1076-2025
7. 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.
8. 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 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
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: KRISHNA SINGH
Signing time: 7/2/2026
11:34:52 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:46965
5 CR-1076-2025
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.
9. 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:-
"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
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: KRISHNA SINGH
Signing time: 7/2/2026
11:34:52 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:46965
6 CR-1076-2025
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."
10. 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
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: KRISHNA SINGH
Signing time: 7/2/2026
11:34:52 AM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:46965
7 CR-1076-2025
the award. The quantum in the present case is so less that the total 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.
11. 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. In case, the claimants file any
appeal or any other case for enhancement, then the applicants shall have the
liberty to get this revision restored.
12. With the aforesaid observations, admission is declined. The
Revision is dismissed.
(VIVEK JAIN)
JUDGE
veni

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: KRISHNA SINGH
Signing time: 7/2/2026
11:34:52 AM