ORDER V. Gopala Gowda, J.—Petitioners who are the different insurance companies have challenged the impugned awards passed by the Members of the different Motor Accident Claims Tribunals from different districts, urging various legal contentions. 2. Since the Petitioners have urged common grounds, in challenging the awards and these petitions were heard together, the legal questions raised are one and the same in all these petitions as the Petitioner-insurance companies are seeking for quashing the impugned awards on the ground that the Members of the different Motor Vehicles Accident Tribunal who are party Respondents in these petitions have in exercise of this power under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act of 1988 (in short called as 'M.V. Act') have arbitrarily decided the claims of the claimants and awarded excessive compensation contrary to the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act and law declared by the Apex Court and this Court with regard to awarding compensation amount under different heads by means of damages. Therefore, these Petitioners have questioned the awards that they have got limited statutory right of appeal under the Act. Therefore, this Court after hearing the learned Counsel for the Petitioners and on behalf of the second Respondent in Writ Petition No. 34459 of 2000, common order is passed after considering and answering the rival legal contentions urged by them. 3. Mr. A.N. Krishna Swamy, in support of his legal contentions urged, on behalf of the Petitioners in first two petitions on whose behalf he was appearing, has placed reliance upon the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in AIR 2001 SC 600 , and this Court rendered in Writ Petition No. 32142 of 2000, dated 3.11.2000 and another judgment of this Court reported in United India Insurance Company Limited and Another Vs. Smt. V. Nagarathna and Others, ILR (2000) KAR 4618 and also the full bench decision of Gauhati High Court (Agarthala Bench) reported in AIR 2000 136, in the case of Milan Rani Saha v. New India Assurance Co. Limited and Ors. and another Division Bench Judgment of Madhya Pradesh High Court reported in the case of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Limited and Ors. and another Division Bench Judgment of Madhya Pradesh High Court reported in the case of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Ramdas Patil and Others, AIR 2000 MP 63 in support of the proposition of this Court and the full bench decision of Gauhati High Court have already taken the view that the writ petitions filed by insurance companies against the impugned awards passed by the various Motor Vehicles Accidents Tribunals, the jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution of India can be invoked by the insurance companies and this Court has got the power to examine the correctness of the compensation awarded by the Tribunals and further learned Counsel Sri A.N. Krishna Swamy placed reliance upon the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in L. Chandra Kumar Vs. Union of India and others, AIR 1997 SC 1125 , wherein the Apex Court after the interpretation of the various provisions of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, has held, this Court has got power under the provisions of Articles 226 and 227 against the order that would be passed by the State Administrative Tribunals and the Central Administrative Tribunal which are established under the provisions of the Act of 1985. Therefore, this Court has got jurisdiction to examine the legality and validity of the awards to find out whether the compensation awarded in favour of the claimants is in conformity with the provisions of the Act or in the excessive side. A.N. Venkatesh and Sri O. Mahesh have supplemented the argument advanced by the learned Counsel Mr. A.N. Krishna Swamy placing the reliance upon the judgments referred to supra and also other Judgments of the Apex Court reported in JT 2000 (4) SC 213 and Full Bench Judgment of Himachal Pradesh High Court reported in AIR 2000 SC 21. 4. Learned Counsel Mr. Nataraj, appearing on behalf of the second Respondent in the first writ petition has contended that this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the writ petitions filed by the insurance companies for the reason that their rights are settled under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act of 1988. 4. Learned Counsel Mr. Nataraj, appearing on behalf of the second Respondent in the first writ petition has contended that this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the writ petitions filed by the insurance companies for the reason that their rights are settled under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act of 1988. The rights which are not given under the provisions of the Act shall not be enlarged by this Court in exercise of its extraordinary and supervisory jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India having regard to the object and intentment of the Act, viz., that the Insurance companies have come into existence in pursuant to the provisions of the Insurance Companies Act, 1948. The Petitioners-Companies have come into existence as a social security measure providing compensation to either the victims or dependents of the dead persons in a Motor Vehicle Accident, of which Motor Vehicle is insured by the owner under the provisions of the Act, 1948 and Act 1988. Insurance of a Motor Vehicle is mandatory under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. In this view of the matter, the rights and obligations of the parties, namely the Claimants, insurer, owners of the Motor Vehicles and drivers of the vehicles are clearly conferred upon under the provisions of the Act. The rights which are not provided under the provisions of the Act in favour of the parties shall not be enlarged by this Court at their instance by invoking the extra-ordinary and supervisory jurisdiction of this Court, to examine the legality and validity of the awards that would be passed by the Jurisdictional Motor Vehicles Accidents Claims Tribunals after determining the rights of the parties after conducting an enquiry. Therefore, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the second Respondent in the first writ petition has prayed for dismissal of the writ petitions. 5. The similar legal contentions were urged in Writ Petition No. 32142 of 2000 by the learned Counsel on behalf of M/s. New India Assurance Company Limited, wherein this Court after careful examination of the provisions of the Act and law laid down by the Apex Court in the cases referred to in the said judgment has elaborately considered the legal contentions raised by the parties and answered with reference to the powers of this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. Reliance has been placed upon the provisions of Sections 149 (1)(2) and (7) and 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988; and the judgments of the Apex Court reported in Narendra Kumar and Another Vs. Yarenissa and Others, JT (1998) 7 SC 445 with reference to old Sections 96(2) and 110(c) of the repealed Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 and the judgment of the Apex Court in Chinnamma George Vs. N.K. Raju AIR 2000 SC 1564 wherein Their Lordships have laid down the law at paragraphs 7 and 8 of the said judgment which are extracted as hereunder for appreciating and answering the legal submissions made by the learned Counsel on behalf of the Petitioners: 7. Sections 146, 147 and 173 are in the scheme of the Act and when read together mean: (1) it is obligatory to insure the motor vehicle against third party risk. Driving an uninsured vehicle is an offence punishable with an imprisonment extending up to three months or the fine which may extend to Rs. 1,000/- or both; (2) Policy of insurance must comply with the requirements as contained in Section 147 of the Act; (3) It is obligatory for the insurer to satisfy the judgments and awards against the person insured in respect of third party risks. These are Sub-sections (1) and (7) of Section 149. Grounds on which insurer can avoid his liability are given in Sub-section (2) of Section 149. 8. If none of the conditions as contained in Sub-section (2) of Section 149 exists for the insurer to avoid the policy of insurance he is legally bound to satisfy the award. He cannot be a person aggrieved by the award. In that case insurer will be barred from filing any appeal against the award of the Claims Tribunal. Further, this Court in the above said writ petition has examined the object and intentment of the legislature with regard to the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act to find out whether the Petitioner-company can invoke the powers of this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the awards passed by the MACT. Further, this Court in the above said writ petition has examined the object and intentment of the legislature with regard to the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act to find out whether the Petitioner-company can invoke the powers of this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the awards passed by the MACT. This Court in Writ Petition No. 32142 of 2000 has clearly held that process of this Court under the above provisions of the Constitution of India shall not be permitted to be invoked by the Insurance Companies and the same cannot be exercised by this Court to perpetuate the breach of law or breach of limits prescribed by law with reference to the extent of defences being available to the insurer and has further held that when the law lays down the policy under the provisions of the Act, powers under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India cannot be exercised to enable a party to widen the scope of its defences contrary to and in defiance of provisions of law and its scheme relating to the awarding of compensation in favour of the claimants. Further placing reliance upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Mafatlal Industries and Ors. Vs. Union of India and Ors. (1997) 5 SCC 536 wherein the Apex Court with reference to the relevant provisions of the statute, the jurisdiction of the High Courts under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India its power under Article 32 has clearly laid down the law at paragraphs 77 and 108(x), the relevant portions of those paragraphs are extracted for the purpose of considering and answering the legal contentions urged by the learned Counsel as hereunder: 77. So far as jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 or for that matter the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 32 is concerned, it is obvious that the provisions of the Act cannot bar and curtail these remedies. It is, however, equally obvious that while exercising the power under Article 226/Article 32, the Court would certainly take note of the legislative intent manifested in the provisions of the Act and would exercise their jurisdiction consistent with the provisions of the enactment. It is, however, equally obvious that while exercising the power under Article 226/Article 32, the Court would certainly take note of the legislative intent manifested in the provisions of the Act and would exercise their jurisdiction consistent with the provisions of the enactment. 108(x): So far as the jurisdiction of the High Courts under Article 226 of the Constitution or of this Court under Article 32 is concerned, it remains unaffected by the provisions of the Act. Even so, the Court would, while exercising the jurisdiction under the said articles, have due regard to the legislative intent manifested by the provisions of the Act. The writ petition would naturally be considered and disposed of in the light of and in accordance with the provisions of Section 11-B. This is for the reason that the power under Article 226 has to be exercising to effectuate the regime of law and not for abrogating it. Even while acting in exercise of the said constitutional power, the High Court cannot ignore that law nor can it override it. The power under Article 226 is conceived to serve the ends of law and not to transgress them. This Court has held that in Writ Petition 32142 of 2000 filed by M/s. New India Assurance Company Limited is misconceived and as such the writ petitions filed by the said Insurance Company was held to be not maintainable in law. Further though this Court has considered the contentions of the Petitioner in that petition that the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal has awarded compensation in favour of the claimants in excess, with reference to the case law which have been exclusively referred to and this Court has negatived the contentions of the Petitioner therein by answering all the legal contentions urged therein. The observations of this Court in the case cited supra with regard to the award of compensation under various heads and also with reference to the case law on the relevant aspects of the claims do not amount to laying down the law holding that this Court has got the power to entertain the writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India against the awards that would be passed by the MAC Ts, particularly having regard to the fact that this Court has clearly laid down the law at paragraphs 11 and 12 after placing reliance upon the provisions of Sections 149 (1), (2) and (7) and 173 of the Act and the law laid down by the Apex Court which are referred to in the earlier paragraphs of this order. Therefore, the reliance placed upon the decision of the Supreme Court reported in L. Chandra Kumar Vs. Union of India and others, AIR 1997 SC 1125 has no application to the facts of the present case. For the reasons recorded supra, the jurisdiction of this Court is conferred under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India against the orders that would be passed by either the State Tribunals or the Central Administrative Tribunals which are established under the provisions of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. Prior to the said judgment, the right of appeal was provided to the aggrieved parties against the orders that would be passed by either the State Administrative Tribunals or the Central Administrative Tribunals before the Supreme Court under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. The Supreme Court in the case of Chandra Kumar referred to supra for the various tenable, cogent and valid reasons recorded in that case has held that the orders that would be passed by the said Tribunals are subject to the judicial review of this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India after interpreting the relevant provisions of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 and taking either relevant aspects such as the rights of the parties, constitution of the Tribunal and appointment of its Chairman, Vice-Chairman, its members. In this view of the matter, the law laid down in the aforesaid case has no application to the facts of the present case, for the reason that the defences provided to the insurer under Section 149(2) of the Act and right of Appeal provided to the parties under Section 173 of the Act and law laid down by the Apex Court in Mafatlal and Chinnamma George cases referred to supra. Therefore, the reliance placed upon the case Chandra Kumar will not render any assistance to the case of the Petitioners. Hence, these writ petitions are not maintainable. 6. In view of the clear pronouncement of law laid down by the Apex Court in Narendra Kumar Vs. Yarenissa; Chinnamma George Vs. N.K. Raju and Mafatlal Industries and Ors. Vs. Union of India and Others which judgments have been referred to by this Court in M/s. New India Assurance Company Limited (Writ Petition No. 32142 of 2000) and law has been clearly laid down at paragraphs 11 and 12 of the judgment in that case. Therefore, the reliance placed by the learned Counsel for the Petitioners upon the judgments of Full Bench of the Gauhati High Court (Agarthala Bench), Madhya Pradesh High Court at Jabalpur, reported in 2000 ACJ 275 and others cases of the Apex Court referred to supra and the reliance placed upon the judgments of this Court are untenable in law and as such they are misplaced and as such the submission made by the Petitioner's-Counsel that in M/s. New India Assurance Company Limited in Writ Petition No. 32142 of 2000 dated on 5.11.2000 this Court has held that the writ petition is maintainable and as such Rule may be issued in these matters and that if this Court were to come to the different view the matter is required to be referred to the Larger Bench is wholly untenable in law for the reason that the Apex Court and this Court in the cases cited supra have consistently taken the view that the writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is not maintainable against the awards that would be passed by different Motor Accidents Claims Tribunals, in exercise of their power under the provisions of the Act. 7. For the reasons stated supra, these writ petitions are dismissed.