JUDGMENT A.L. VAIDYA, J.—All these petitions are being disposed of with this common order, as common questions of law and facts are involved therein. 2. Various claim petitions were preferred before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Shimla, for grant of compensation on account of some motor accident which took place on 4.3.1996 wherein Bus No, HP-06-1245 was involved. Twenty claim petitions were alleged to have been filed arising out of the same accident. Insofar as the present petitions are concerned, in each case the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal awarded compensation less than Rs. 10,000/-. As these awards could not be assailed by preferring appeals, hence the present petitioner, that is, National Insurance Company, has filed the present petition(s) under Article 227 of the Constitution of India: The award was given by the Claims Tribunal, Shimla, on 31.7.97. 3. The main question involved in the present petition(s) is with respect to the maintainability of the petition(s) under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, especially when for assailing the award of present nature, the statutory appeal has been debarred. The other question which has to be gone into in the case is with respect to the scope of interference by this Court in the award made by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 4. All these petitions have been contested on behalf of the claimants. 5. Learned Counsel for the parties have been heard and the arguments advanced have been appreciated. 6. Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter to be called as the Act) provides the right of appeal against the award made by the Tribunal. Section 173 sub-clause (2) of the Act reads as under : "No appeal shall lie against any award of a Claims Tribunal if the amount in dispute in the appeal is less than Ten Thousand rupees." The aforesaid provision creates a statutory bar in preferring appeal against any award amounting to less than Rs. 10,000/-. The purpose behind this provision is that where the Claims Tribunal awards an amount less than Rs. 10,000/- the statutory finality should be attached to such an award. The idea behind this provision is that award for meagre amount specified hereinabove should be considered under the law to be final so far as the parties were concerned. 10,000/-. The purpose behind this provision is that where the Claims Tribunal awards an amount less than Rs. 10,000/- the statutory finality should be attached to such an award. The idea behind this provision is that award for meagre amount specified hereinabove should be considered under the law to be final so far as the parties were concerned. It is with this view that sub-clause (2) of Section 173 of the Act has been enacted. 7. Article 227 of the Constitution of India empowers the High Court with some limited powers of interference in cases of grave dereliction of duty or flagrant violation of Saw and there is no dispute to this proposition that these powers are exercised most sparingly, in cases where grave injustice would be done unless the High Court interferes. These powers cannot be used as appellate or revisional power. Such power cannot be used to correct an error of fact or of law, not being an error of law apparent on the face of the record, of an irregularity or illegality of procedure, unless such error affects the jurisdiction, or involves a breach of the principles of natural justice. The power envisaged under Article 227 of the Constitution of India cannot be exercised by the High Court to substitute its own inference and judgment for that of the inferior Court, whether on a question of fact or of law or interfere with the intra vires exercise of a discretionary power, unless it is arbitrary or capricious or unless there was no evidence at all on which the inferior Court could have come to the conclusion it did, or there was error of finding on a jurisdictional fact. The High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is not an Appellate Court and as such cannot pass any order of remand, etc. 8. In the present case in the background of the circumstances, it has to be looked into whether High Court is empowered to entertain a petition of present nature which basically if considered favourably would amount to take away effect of statutory provision of Section 173 sub-clause (2) of the Act. Learned Counsel for the petitioner(s) has not been successful in making home the aforesaid proposition in favour of the petitioners. Learned Counsel for the petitioner(s) has not been successful in making home the aforesaid proposition in favour of the petitioners. Learned Counsels line of argument has been that no doubt appeal has not been provided for the cases of present nature under the Act and there is statutory bar for such an appeal, even then the Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has ample power to interfere in the award made by the Tribunal in the present cases inasmuch as those have been passed illegally without properly appreciating the evidence. 9. Learned Counsel for the petitioner(s) has tried to take some advantage from decided precedents. In this behalf learned Counsel for the petitioner(s) has cited 1976 (3) Criminal Law Times 619, Sh. Purshotam Das v. Smt Ganesh Bhagti and others; 1988 XV Cr. L.T. 1, Bimal Kaur Khalsa v. Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi, 1987(1) The Punjab Law Reporter 623, Original Bank of Commerce v. Lajwanti Chemicals and others; 1984 ACJ 273, Rajeshwari v. United India Insurance Company and others, AIR 1970 SC 1, Shankar Ram Chandra Abhyankar v. Krishnaji Dattatraya Bapat, going against the statutory provision of Section 173(2) of the Act. 13. Similar question arose in CMP(M) No. 669/97, Mittar Singh v. Ashish Kumar and others, decided on 19.3.1998 before another Bench of this Court, wherein it has been held that the provisions of Section 173(2) of the Act have to be read or construed in the manner so that the object of the provisions is not diverted. It has been further held that this Court while exercising extra-ordinary jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is not to sit as a court of appeal or a revisional court so as to correct errors of law or of fact committed by the subordinate authorities. It was further observed that the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act being a social legislation for the welfare of the citizens, should be interpreted harmoniously so as to achieve the object for which the provision has been made. 14. Thus, taking into consideration the aforesaid facts, the present petitions at this stage have to be disallowed and accordingly stand dismissed. The parties are left to bear their own costs. Petition dismissed.