Branch Manager Kotak Genreal Insurance Company Ltd. vs Chhotelal

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:55075
1 CR-668-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR

BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK JAIN
nd
ON THE 22 OF JULY, 2026
CIVIL REVISION No. 668 of 2026
BRANCH MANAGER KOTAK GENREAL INSURANCE COMPANY
LTD.
Versus
CHHOTELAL AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Prakhar Awasthi - Advocate for applicant.
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.73572/- to the claimant-respondent.
2. The present revision under Section 115 of CPC 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 liability
should have been imposed on the owner of the offending vehicle and
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PREM SHANKAR
MISHRA
Signing time: 23-07-2026
11:53:07

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:55075
2 CR-668-2026
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
Special Bench held as under:-
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PREM SHANKAR
MISHRA
Signing time: 23-07-2026
11:53:07

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:55075
3 CR-668-2026


"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."
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
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PREM SHANKAR
MISHRA
Signing time: 23-07-2026
11:53:07

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:55075
4 CR-668-2026
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 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
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PREM SHANKAR
MISHRA
Signing time: 23-07-2026
11:53:07

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:55075
5 CR-668-2026
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 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 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
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PREM SHANKAR
MISHRA
Signing time: 23-07-2026
11:53:07

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-JBP:55075
6 CR-668-2026
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.
12. With the aforesaid observations, admission is declined. The Revision is
dismissed. However, the petitioner is granted liberty to get this revision
restored in case the claimant files any case for enhancement of
compensation.
(VIVEK JAIN)
JUDGE
psm
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PREM SHANKAR
MISHRA
Signing time: 23-07-2026
11:53:07