Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 242 (JK)

Hans Raj Bhagat v. State & Ors.

2012-05-10

MOHAMMAD YAQOOB MIR

body2012
1. One Ramesh Kumar, sustained fatal injuries in a road accident allegedly due to the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the vehicle [Tractor] and finally succumbed to the injuries. Petition for compensation under Section 166 of Motor Vehicle Act [for short the Act] has been filed by the respondents (widow and son of the deceased). Along side an application under Section 140 of the Act has also been filed, which has been disposed of by the Tribunal vide its order dated 22nd of July 2009 where under an amount of Rs. 50,000/- as interim compensation has been granted on the basis of No Fault Liability . The owner of the vehicle has been fastened with the liability to pay the said amount with a condition that finally if he proves liability of the Insurance Company, then shall have the right to recover the said amount from the Insurance Company. Why Insurer (Insurance Company) respondent no.1 has not been asked to pay the compensation of Rs. 50,000/- is reflected in the order where it is stated that the license of the driver of offending vehicle was endorsed for P.S.V in the year 2002, which was required to be renewed after three years but had not been. 2. It is now the owner of the offending vehicle who has filed the instant Revision Petition, projecting the grievance only to the limited extent i.e., fastening of the liability to pay the compensation. 3. Learned counsel for the respondent no.1 [Insurer] questioned the maintainability of the Revision Petition on two counts:- i) that the Claims Tribunal is not a Civil Court subordinate to the High Court, so is not subject to the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court; ii) that the order is appeal able so revision against such order is not maintainable. i] The first question as to whether the orders of the Tribunal are not amenable to the revisional jurisdiction, has to be answered in affirmative because the controversy has been settled in the judgment rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in Abdul Gaffar Gujree Vs. Mohammad Phaphoo ors., reported in A.I.R 1985 JK 26 paragraph No. 25 of the said judgment reads as under: 25. Mohammad Phaphoo ors., reported in A.I.R 1985 JK 26 paragraph No. 25 of the said judgment reads as under: 25. Therefore, we have no doubt in our mind that neither the language of the relevant provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act nor the Rules framed thereunder suggest that the Claims Tribunal was constituted as a civil court. In fact it is constituted as an Administrative Authority and has no trappings or attributes of a civil court. It, therefore, follows that the Claims Tribunal is not a civil court subordinate to the High Court or subject to its revisional jurisdiction. ii] In view of the determination of the question no. (i), question no. (ii) is not required to be dealt with, but however it has to be made clear that even if Section 115 of Code of Civil Procedure (for short C.P.C) would be applicable still revision against such order is barred. Section 115 (2) of C.P.C provides that High Court shall not under this Section vary or reverse any order against which appeal lies to the High Court. 4. Now again the question as to whether the order passed under Section 140 of the Act where under an amount of Rs. 50,000/- as an interim compensation has been granted would fall within the scope of Award, so as to attract the applicability of Section 173 of the Act, which provides for appeals. This question already stands settled in C.I.M.A No. 198 of 2009 titled Bajaj Allianz Vs. Farida & ors reported in 2011 (2) JKJ 13 [HC] wherein it has been held that the compensation granted on the principle of No Fault Liability is governed by Section 140 of the Act constitute award so appealable under Section 173 of the Act. 5. Law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the judgment Smt. Yallwwa & others Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd., & Another (Civil) Appeal No. 2674 of 2007 has to be followed. The relevant portion governing the issue from paragraph 30 of the judgment is quoted as under:- 30. In our opinion an order of the Tribunal awarding compensation under Section 140 of the Act is appealable under Section 173 as it amounts to an award under Section 173. 6. The relevant portion governing the issue from paragraph 30 of the judgment is quoted as under:- 30. In our opinion an order of the Tribunal awarding compensation under Section 140 of the Act is appealable under Section 173 as it amounts to an award under Section 173. 6. The legal position is clear that the award though styled as interim compensation, in terms of Section 140 of the Motor Vehicle Act is appealable and appeal lies to the High Court. Therefore, in view of the clear bar envisaged by Section 115 (2) of C.P.C, revision is not maintainable. 7. Viewed thus, Revision Petition being not maintainable is accordingly, dismissed. 8. Copy of the order along with record of the Tribunal be sent back forthwith.