Revision under Section 115 CPC cannot circumvent the Section 173(2) Motor Vehicles Act bar on low-quantum appeals.

The Petitioner Insurance Company filed a revision petition under Section 115 of the CPC challenging an award of ₹23,469 passed by the Claims Tribunal.

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

The Petitioner argued that following the 2019 Amendment to the Motor Vehicles Act, the "pay and recover" provision (formerly Section 149(4)) was omitted from the renumbered Section 150.

The Petitioner maintained the revision was necessary to settle this legal question despite the low compensation amount.

1. Whether a Civil Revision under Section 115 CPC is maintainable against a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal award where the dispute amount is less than ₹1,00,000, in light of the statutory bar on appeals under Section 173(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act.

2. Whether the Insurance Company can invoke revisional jurisdiction solely to settle a question of law regarding the interpretation of Section 150 of the amended Motor Vehicles Act when the financial stakes are minimal.

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 ₹1,00,000.

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

Nirbhai Singh v. Darshan Singh (2025), which deprecated the use of Article 227 or revision petitions to circumvent statutory bars on appeals.

The court reasoned that while the Special Bench in Shrikant Vinod Tiwari allowed revisions in "special circumstances," it did not grant liberty to file them as a matter of course to bypass legislative bars.

The court found that the Petitioner failed to demonstrate "irreparable injury" or "failure of justice" because the legal issue regarding Section 150 is already pending before various High Courts and the Supreme Court; thus, leaving this specific small-value award unchallenged would not prejudice the Company’s broader legal stance.

The court observed that the litigation costs of pursuing the revision would likely exceed the awarded amount of ₹23,469, rendering the exercise disproportionate and a burden on judicial resources.

The petition was dismissed, though the legal issues were left open for determination in other pending litigations where the quantum exceeds the statutory threshold. The Petitioner was granted liberty to seek restoration only if the claimants filed for enhancement.