Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 917 (PNJ)

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Saroj

2002-09-13

M.M.KUMAR

body2002
Judgment M. M. Kumar, J. 1. This revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the constitution of India challenging the order dated 25.1.2000 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jhajjar. The Tribunal has rejected the application filed by the petitioner seeking amendment in the written statement wherein a prayer was made to withdraw earlier admission made with regard to accident. In the earlier written statement filed by the petitioner, the accident has been admitted in an unambiguous terms. However, in an application filed by the petitioner insurance company, the accident is sought to be disputed on the basis of the order passed by the Magistrate acquitting the accused. 2. At the outset, it deserves to be mentioned that revisional powers of this court can be exercised under Article 227 in exceptional cases where grave injustice might have resulted, if the order impugned is allowed to stand. However, this court cannot substitute its powers of superintendence with the appellate powers. It is also pertinent to mention that the policy of legislation as reflected in the amendments made effective from 1.7.2002 is to leave such type of orders to the appellate courts. Admittedly, the final order to be passed by the Tribunal could be subject to an appeal before this court, wherein even this interlocutory order under sec. 173 of the motor Vehicles Act has been passed. Admittedly, even the impugned order could also be challenged in such an appeal. In the case of Ouseph Mathai V/s. M. Abdul khadir, (2002) 1 SCC 319, their Lordships of the Supreme Court while interpreting articles 226/227 of the Constitution has observed as under: "it is not denied that the powers conferred upon the High Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution are extraordinary and discretionary powers as distinguished from ordinary statutory powers. No doubt Article 227 confers a right of superintendence over all courts and Tribunals throughout the territories in relation to which it exercises the jurisdiction but no corresponding right is conferred upon a litigant to invoke the jurisdiction under the said article as a matter of right. No doubt Article 227 confers a right of superintendence over all courts and Tribunals throughout the territories in relation to which it exercises the jurisdiction but no corresponding right is conferred upon a litigant to invoke the jurisdiction under the said article as a matter of right. In fact power under this article casts a duty upon the High Court to keep the inferior courts and Tribunals within the limits of their authority and that they do not cross the limits, ensuring the performance of duties by such courts and Tribunals in accordance with law conferring powers within the ambit of the enactments creating such courts and Tribunals. Only wrong decisions may not be a ground for the exercise of jurisdiction under this article unless the wrong is referable to grave dereliction of duty and flagrant abuse of power by the subordinate courts and Tribunals resulting in grave injustice to any party. " Therefore, the revision petition is dismissed. However, the dismissal of the revision petition shall not be construed as a bar for the petitioner to challenge the impugned order on any available grounds by filing the first appeal under sec. 173. In view of the fact that the proceedings in this case were stayed by this court on 17.5.2000, 1 deem it appropriate to direct the Tribunal to dispose of the claim petition within a period of 6 months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The parties through their counsel are directed to appear before the Tribunal on 27.9.2002. Petition dismissed.