In a civil revision filed before the Madhya Pradesh High Court by Future Generali India Insurance Company Ltd (Future Generali) to challenge an award by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT), whereby a compensation of Rs. 19,650/- was awarded to the claimant-respondent, a Single Judge Bench of Justice Vivek Jain refused to entertain the revision and dismissed the same.
The present petition was filed on the sole ground that after amendment in the Motor Vehicles Act by the 2019 Amendment, Section 149 had been renumbered as Section 150 and the provision corresponding to Section 149(4) does not find place in the amended provision. It was asserted that despite finding that the vehicle was run in breach of policy conditions, the MACT had erroneously passed an award against Future Generali, granting liberty of pay and recover.
The Court stated that as per Section 173(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, an appeal against an award by the MACT is barred if the amount in dispute is less than Rs. 10,000/-, which has been enhanced to Rs. 1 lakh by the Amendment Act. Referring to National Insurance Company v. Shrikant Vinod Tiwari & Ors. 2007 (2) J.L.J. 138, the Court noted that the Special Bench concluded that a party could not be left remedy-less, which is why revision would lie under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), but on limited grounds.
The Court found substance in the contention of Future Generali that a legal issue was involved in the present matter for interpretation of the amended Section 150, but said that this contention would have impressed the Court if the present was the only matter in which this issue had arisen. It was stated that numerous appeals had been filed for the same issue and it was not a case where even if the award went unchallenged, the legal issue would have been settled against the insurance company.
Reference was also made to Nirbhai Singh & Anr. v. Darshan Singh & Ors. 2025 SCC OnLine P&H 12450, wherein it was held that when statutory provisions prohibit filing of a statutory appeal, the affected party cannot be permitted to circumvent statutory provisions of law by invoking the power of superintendence.
The Court held that in the present case, even though a legal question of larger importance does arise, but since that question has already been raised in a number of matters, it was not a case where despite a small quantum being involved, any irreparable loss would have been caused to Future Generali by not challenging the award. It was stated that the quantum was so less that the litigation cost of the revision may be equal, if not more.
The Court declined to entertain the present petition with the liberty that Future Generali shall have a right to get this revision restored if the claimant files for enhancement of the award. Thus, the revision was dismissed.
