CR-7589-2019(O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH *** CR-7589-2019(O&M) Date of decision : 05.08.2025 National Insurance Co. Ld. ... Petitioner Versus Ritik and others ... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS BAHL Present: Mr.Rahul Pathania, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Nigam K. Bhardwaj, Advocate for respondent no.4. VIKAS BAHL, J.(ORAL) CM-14162-CII-2025 1. This is an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay of 7 days in filing the accompanying application for restoration of revision petition. 2. For the reasons stated in the application, the application is allowed and the delay of 7 days in filing the accompanying application for restoration of revision petition is condoned. CM-14163-CII-2025 1. This is an application under Order 9 Rule 9 read with Section 151 CPC for restoration of the revision petition which was dismissed for non-prosecution vide order dated 28.05.2025. Davinder Kumar 2025.08.07 13:32 I attest the accuracy and authenticity of this order / judgment CR-7589-2019(O&M) 2 2. For the reasons stated in the application which is supported by an affidavit, the application is allowed and the order dated 28.05.2025 is recalled and the revision petition is ordered to be restored to its original number. CR-7589-2019 1. This is a Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the award dated 26.03.2019 (Annexure A-1) passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bhiwani, vide which compensation of Rs.5000/- has been awarded to the claimant. 2. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of “Bharti AXA General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Sahab Singh and others”, passed in CR-6131-2016, decided on 19.09.2016, had observed that the plain and simple reading of sub-section 2 of Section 173 of the MV Act prohibits any person from challenging the award if the amount of compensation is less than the amount mentioned in the said provision. It was further observed that once statutory provisions prohibits the filing of the statutory appeal, the affected party cannot be permitted to circumvent the statutory provisions of law by invoking the power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and accordingly, the revision petition was held to be not maintainable. It was further observed that however there was no bar for the claimant to claim enhancement of awarded compensation in the said situation. The relevant portion of the said judgment is reproduced as under: - Davinder Kumar 2025.08.07 13:32 I attest the accuracy and authenticity of this order / judgment CR-7589-2019(O&M) 3 “I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, appraised the paper book and of the view that the revision petition filed at the instance of the insurance company is not maintainable when it is statutorily barred from not filing the same under Section 173(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. For the sake of brevity, Section 173(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act reads as under:- “No appeal shall lie against any award of a Claims Tribunal if the amount in dispute in the appeal is less than ten thousand rupees.” Plain and simple reading of sub-section 2 of Section 173 prohibits any person to challenge the Award if the amount of compensation is less than ten thousand rupees. Even the Legislature in its wisdom also amended provisions of Section 102 of the Code of Civil Procedure restricting the maintainability of second appeal where the subject matter of the original suit is for recovery of money not exceeding Rs.25,000/-. In case, revisions are permitted to be entertained then in all the suits having amount less than Rs.25,000/-, the Courts would be flooded with the revision petitions. Once statutory provisions prohibits the filing of the statutory appeal, the affected party cannot be permitted to circumvent the statutory provisions of law by invoking the superintending power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The scope of superintending power has been deliberated/pondered upon by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Surya Dev Rai Vs. Ram Chander Rai and others 2004(1) RCR (Civil) 147 has been deliberated/pondered upon and has been held that the superintending powers by the Courts should be used in the mode and manner as has been drafted in the statute books and Davinder Kumar 2025.08.07 13:32 I attest the accuracy and authenticity of this order / judgment CR-7589-2019(O&M) 4 permitted by law. The Legislature has put a complete full stop for redressal of the grievance in respect of the amount of compensation less than Rs.10,000/-. Thus, the present revision petition, in my view, invoking the provisions of Article 227 when the statutory appeal is prohibited, is not maintainable. The bar under Section 173(2) is applicable to the persons challenging the reduction/setting aside of the Award but there is no bar to the claimant in case the amount of compensation is less than Rs.10,000/- and he can seek enhancement of the same. I would not delve upon the merits of the case. The revision petition is dismissed as not maintainable.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in view of the above law and in view of the fact that the amount of compensation is only Rs.5000/-, the petitioner seeks to withdraw the present petition. 4. In view of the statement made by learned counsel for the petitioner, the present petition is dismissed as withdrawn. (VIKAS BAHL) JUDGE August 05, 2025. Davinder Kumar Whether speaking / reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No Davinder Kumar 2025.08.07 13:32 I attest the accuracy and authenticity of this order / judgment