2025:HHC:27814 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA CMPMO No. 401 of 2019 Decided on : 18.08.2025 National Insurance Company Limited. …Petitioner Versus Ashiq Ali and others. …Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner : Mr. Pritam Singh Chandel, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Servedaman Rathor, Advocate. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) By way of this petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has assailed the Award dated 03.05.2019, passed by the Court of learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-I, Sirmaur District at Nahan, H.P. in Claim Petition No. 20-MAC/2 of 2016, titled as Ashiq Ali Vs. Rajesh Kumar & Ors. The above claim petition was disposed of by the learned Tribunal as under:- “32. As a sequel of my findings on the issues above, 1Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2025:HHC:27814 the petition is allowed and compensation of Rs.10,000/- is hereby awarded in favour of the petitioner along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum on the aforesaid amount from the date of filing of the petition till deposit/payment of aforesaid amount of compensation. The aforesaid amount of compensation is inclusive of the amount, if any, awarded as interim compensation under no fault liability. The aforesaid amount of compensation shall be deposited/aid by respondent No.3 being insurer of the vehicle in question. Memo of costs be prepared. File after due completion be consigned to record room.” 2. Section 173 (2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, inter alia provides that no appeal shall lie against any award of Claims Tribunal if the amount in dispute in the appeal is less than Rs.1.00 Lac. Before the amendment of Section 173(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, which came into force w.e.f. 01.09.2019, in terms whereof, the amount of Rs.10,000/- was substituted by Rs.1.00 Lac, the bar was against any award of Claims Tribunal if the amount in dispute in the appeal was Rs.10,000/-. 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that as the petitioner faces the bar under Section 173(2) of the 3 2025:HHC:27814 Motor Vehicles Act, in terms whereof, the petitioner cannot challenge the award passed by the learned Tribunal, the petitioner is invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 4. This Court is of the considered view that when the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which is a special Act and the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal is a creation whereof, specifically bars appeals in certain cases against the awards passed by learned Tribunal, taking into consideration the pecuniary amount involved, then what cannot be done directly, cannot be allowed to be done indirectly, by permitting the aggrieved party to challenge the award under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 5. At this stage, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the reason as to why this petition has been filed is that there are other awards arising out of the same accident wherein the amount is in excess of Rs.1.00 Lac and if this award attains finality, then it would be difficult for the petitioner to assail other awards on merit, as the same will act as res- judicata. 4 2025:HHC:27814 6. This Court is of the considered view that because there is a statutory bar under Section 173(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, debarring the aggrieved party from assailing the award in terms of the amount involved therein, this bar cannot preclude the aggrieved party from assailing other awards, may be arising out of the same accident, wherein the amount involved is more than that is provided in Section 173(2) of the Act. The non-maintainability of appeals in the awards like the present one, can be permitted to act as res-judicata because if this is permitted to happen, then it will frustrate the cause of justice and take a valuable right of appeal which stands conferred upon an aggrieved party under the Motor Vehicles Act. Therefore, though, this Court is dismissing this petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India as being not maintainable, however, it is observed that dismissal of this petition and further the bar in terms of Section 173(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act in the way of the petitioner-Insurance Company in filing the appeal against the award in issue shall not act as an impediment in the way of the Insurance Company in assailing other awards, which are not hit by bar of Section 5 2025:HHC:27814 173(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, in accordance with law. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, stand disposed of accordingly. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge August 18, 2025 (Shivank Thakur)