Revision under Section 115 CPC is not Maintainable to Circumvent Statutory Prohibitions on Appeals for Low-Quantum Awards

The S.B.I. General Insurance Co. Ltd. (Petitioner) filed a civil revision under Section 115 of the CPC challenging an award of ₹96,161/- passed by the Claims Tribunal.

The Tribunal found the vehicle was operated in breach of policy conditions but ordered the insurer to "pay and recover" the amount.

The Petitioner argued that following the 2019 Amendment to the Motor Vehicles Act, which renumbered Section 149 as Section 150 and altered its provisions, the "pay and recover" directive is no longer legally permissible.

The court noted the low quantum of the award and the fact that statutory appeals for awards under ₹1,00,000/- are barred under Section 173(2) of the Act.

1. Whether a revision under Section 115 of the CPC is maintainable against a Claims Tribunal award where the amount in dispute is less than the statutory threshold for appeal (₹1 Lakh).

2. Whether the Insurance Company is entitled to invoke revisional jurisdiction to settle a legal question regarding "pay and recover" under the amended Section 150, despite the low financial stakes of the specific case.

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 Co. v. Shrikant Vinod Tiwari, 2007 (2) J.L.J. 138: Established that while a revision under Section 115 CPC is not barred, it lies only in limited circumstances such as jurisdictional error, failure of justice, or irreparable injury.

Nirbhai Singh v. Darshan Singh, 2025 SCC OnLine P & H 12450: Parties cannot circumvent statutory bars on appeals by filing revisions or Article 227 petitions.

The court reasoned that while the Shrikant Vinod Tiwari case allows for revisions in exceptional circumstances, the current petition did not meet that threshold.

The court found that the legal issue concerning Section 150 is already being litigated in numerous other forums, including the Supreme Court; therefore, leaving this specific low-value award unchallenged would not cause "irreparable injury" or settle the legal issue against the insurer permanently.

The court emphasized that the litigation costs for this revision would likely exceed the actual award, and entertaining such revisions for amounts below the statutory threshold (₹1 Lakh) would undermine the legislative intent of Section 173(2).

The court declined to entertain the revision and dismissed it, granting liberty to seek revival only if the claimant seeks a future enhancement of the award.