01Facts
The applicant Insurance Company challenged an award passed by the Claims Tribunal, which granted compensation of ₹19,650/- to the respondent
¶ 1Although the Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 2019, increased the threshold for filing appeals under Section 173(2) to ₹1,00,000/-, the applicant filed a civil revision under Section 115 of the CPC
¶ 2, 5The applicant contended that since the 2019 Amendment renumbered Section 149 as Section 150 and omitted provisions corresponding to Section 149(4), the Tribunal erred in applying the "pay and recover" principle after finding a breach of policy conditions
¶ 2, 302Issues
i.1. Whether a civil revision under Section 115 of the CPC is maintainable against a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal award where the quantum is below the statutory appeal threshold of ₹1,00,000/-
¶ 6ii.2. Whether the Insurance Company can invoke revisional jurisdiction solely to settle a question of law of "larger importance" when the financial stake is negligible and the same issue is pending in higher forums
¶ 8, 1003Law Applied
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 ₹1.00 Lakh
¶ 5The five-judge Special Bench decision in National Insurance Co. v. Shrikant Vinod Tiwari, 2007 (2) J.L.J. 138, which held that while a revision under Section 115 CPC is not barred, it lies only in "special circumstances" such as lack of jurisdiction, failure of justice, or irreparable injury, and not in routine matters
¶ 6, 7Nirbhai Singh v. Darshan Singh, 2025 SCC OnLine P & H 12450, which deprecated the practice of using Article 227 or revisions to circumvent the statutory bar on appeals
¶ 9Provisions in the judgment · 4 · Linked ones open on LawLens
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 Section 115
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 Section 149Section 150Section 173
04Reasoning
The Court observed that the legislature intentionally raised the appeal threshold to ₹1.00 Lakh to prevent trivial litigation
¶ 5While the applicant raised a legal issue regarding the interpretation of the amended Section 150, the Court noted that this issue is already sub-judice in numerous other appeals before various High Courts and the Supreme Court
¶ 8Consequently, the present award would not result in "irreparable loss" or a final settlement of law against the Company if left unchallenged
¶ 8, 10The Court further reasoned that the litigation costs for both parties would likely exceed the awarded amount of ₹19,650/-, making the revision a commercially and legally disproportionate remedy
¶ 10The Court found that the applicant failed to meet the "special circumstances" criteria established in Shrikant Vinod Tiwari
¶ 1005Holding
Statutory bars on appeals cannot be circumvented through revisions unless there is a clear failure of justice or jurisdictional error not present here
¶ 10The Court declined to entertain the revision and dismissed it
¶ 11, 14However, the Court granted the Insurance Company the right to restore this revision if the claimant seeks enhancement and clarified that this order does not prejudice the Company's right to argue the same legal issues in other pending appeals exceeding the ₹1.00 Lakh threshold
¶ 12, 13Original Court PDF
Future Generali India Insurance Company LimitedvsPankaj Verma
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
