Civil revision against awards below ₹1 lakh is not maintainable to settle academic legal questions.

The applicant Insurance Company challenged an award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, which granted compensation of Rs. 73,572/- to the claimant/respondent.

The Tribunal found the vehicle was operated in breach of policy conditions but applied the "pay and recover" principle.

The Insurance Company argued that following the 2019 Amendment to the Motor Vehicles Act (specifically the renumbering of Section 149 to Section 150), "pay and recover" is no longer permissible.

The Company pursued the revision despite the low quantum, asserting the legal issue was of "larger interest".

1. Whether a civil revision under Section 115 of the CPC is maintainable against a Claims Tribunal award where the amount in dispute is less than Rs. 1,00,000/-, given the statutory bar on appeals under Section 173(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act?

2. Whether the Insurance Company is entitled to invoke revisional jurisdiction solely to settle a legal question when the financial value of the award is minimal and the same legal issue is already pending in other higher forums?

Section 173(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (as amended in 2019), which bars appeals against awards where the amount in dispute is less than Rs. 1,00,000/-.

National Insurance Co. v. Shrikant Vinod Tiwari (2007), which held that while a revision under Section 115 CPC is not barred, it is limited to cases of jurisdictional error, failure of justice, or irreparable injury.

Nirbhai Singh v. Darshan Singh (2025), emphasizing that parties cannot circumvent statutory appeal bars by invoking supervisory/revisional jurisdictions as a matter of course.

The Court reasoned that while the Special Bench in Shrikant Vinod Tiwari allows revisions in exceptional circumstances to ensure a party is not "remediless," this does not grant liberty to file revisions in routine matters or to bypass the legislative intent of Section 173(2).

The Court noted that the legal question regarding Section 150 (formerly Section 149) is already sub-judice before various High Courts and the Supreme Court; therefore, reaching a conclusion in this specific low-value case was not "obligatory" to prevent a failure of justice.

Furthermore, the Court observed that the litigation costs for this revision would likely exceed the awarded amount of Rs. 73,572/-, rendering the pursuit of the revision commercially and legally disproportionate.

The Court dismissed the revision while granting liberty to the petitioner to restore the revision only if the claimant seeks enhancement of the compensation.