The New India Assurance Company Limited vs Harun Rashid Khan

1 CR-269-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR

BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK JAIN
th
ON THE 18 OF MARCH, 2026
CIVIL REVISION No. 269 of 2026
THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED
Versus
HARUN RASHID KHAN AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Gulab Chand Sohane - Advocate for 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.64,500/- to the claimant/respondent No.1.
2. This revision under Section 115 of CPC has been filed against the award
of Claims Tribunal on the ground that the injured person was a traveller in
the passenger car that had turned turtle and the injured had sustained injuries
whereas the liability under the insurance policy did not extend to the said
injured person and as per terms and conditions of the insurance policy such
persons travelling in the car were not covered.
3. It has been held by the Claims Tribunal that the Insurance Company
failed to conclusively prove by way of evidence that the person travelling in
the car was not covered as per the terms and conditions of the insurance
policy.
4. When this Court confronted the petitioner with the query that the award
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PREM SHANKAR
MISHRA
Signing time: 20-03-2026
11:04:51

2 CR-269-2026
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
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:
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PREM SHANKAR
MISHRA
Signing time: 20-03-2026
11:04:51

3 CR-269-2026
(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."
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. It is not 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
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PREM SHANKAR
MISHRA
Signing time: 20-03-2026
11:04:51

4 CR-269-2026
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 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
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PREM SHANKAR
MISHRA
Signing time: 20-03-2026
11:04:51

5 CR-269-2026
above, it is clear that the statutory mandate bars any challenge to the award

which is less than Rs.1.00 Lakh, and 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 no legal question of larger
importance arises, 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 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. Therefore, this Court
declines to entertain the present revision.
11. With the aforesaid observations, admission is declined. The Revision is
dismissed. However, in case the claimant files any case for enhancement of
quantum, then the petitioner shall have a liberty to get this revision restored.
(VIVEK JAIN)
JUDGE
psm
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PREM SHANKAR
MISHRA
Signing time: 20-03-2026
11:04:51