Writ jurisdiction cannot substitute for a barred appeal absent a fundamental flaw in decision-making.

The claimant sought compensation for injuries sustained as a pillion rider in a 2008 motor accident involving a lorry owned by VRL Logistics Ltd.

The Tribunal initially awarded compensation of ₹46,000 and placed liability on the owner because it had not produced evidence that the lorry’s driver held a valid licence.

The owner’s appeal resulted in a remand for examination of its assertion that the driver had a valid licence.

On remand, the owner did not participate effectively or produce the relevant documents before the Tribunal made the decision challenged in the writ proceedings.

The owner’s writ petition was dismissed as not maintainable, with liberty to pursue an appropriate first appeal. It appealed that order, arguing that Section 173(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act barred an appeal because the compensation was below ₹1,00,000.

Whether the Tribunal’s decision awarding compensation of ₹46,000 was appealable under Section 173(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, as amended.

Whether the absence of a statutory appeal required the High Court to entertain a writ petition under Article 226, notwithstanding the owner’s failure to participate effectively in the remand proceedings.

Section 173(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, as amended with effect from 1 April 2022, bars an appeal where the amount in dispute is less than ₹1,00,000.

The High Court held that Article 226 proceedings are not a substitute for a first appeal; where the statute makes the Tribunal’s decision final for disputes below the threshold, a writ petition should not be entertained absent a fundamental flaw in the decision-making process.

The Court accepted that the compensation of ₹46,000 fell below the statutory threshold and that the Tribunal’s decision was therefore not appealable under Section 173(2).

It held, however, that this restriction did not itself entitle the owner to challenge the decision by writ.

The record showed that, despite the remand and repeated opportunities to appear, the owner failed to participate effectively and did not produce the relevant licence documents before the Tribunal’s decision.

In those circumstances, the Court found no basis to treat the case as one involving a fundamental flaw in the decision-making process and considered the writ petition and ensuing appeal an unjustifiable use of judicial time.

The appellant was ordered to pay costs of ₹10,000 to the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority within two weeks.