Madhya Pradesh High Court
Magma Hdi General Insurance Company … vs Prince Pyush Mathews on 18 March, 2026
1 CR-957-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK JAIN
ON THE 18th OF MARCH, 2026
CIVIL REVISION No. 957 of 2024
MAGMA HDI GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.
Versus
PRINCE PYUSH MATHEWS AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Ms. Arpana Nakra - Advocate for petitioner.
ORDER
The present revision has been filed by the Insurance Company
challenging the award passed by the Claims Tribunal, whereby the Tribunal
has awarded compensation of Rs.15,000/- to the claimant-respondent No.1.
2. The counsel for the petitioner/Insurance Company has argued that the
Claims Tribunal has erroneously passed the impugned award against the
Insurance Company because it was a case of false implication of vehicle.
Therefore, the Insurance Company could not have been saddled with any
liability to compensate the claimant and the Tribunal has erroneously passed
the award against the Insurance Company.
3. However, upon perusal of the grounds of revision it is seen that no
ground is taken regarding false implication of the vehicle and a ground has
been taken that in fact it was the driver of the car who was negligent in the
matter and, therefore, the Insurance Company is not liable. It has further
been contended in the revision that the truck was standing still whereas the
car was in motion and, therefore, liability would not fall on the Insurance
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PREM SHANKAR
MISHRA
Signing time: 20-03-2026
11:04:51
2 CR-957-2024
Company which has insured the truck.
4. When this Court confronted the petitioner with the query that the award
in this case is of a very low quantum and the litigation expenses of this case
alone may be almost equal to the awarded amount for the petitioner itself
apart from the litigation cost to be borne by the respondents in case this
revision is entertained, the counsel for the petitioner submitted that since the
issue raised is in larger interest and of larger importance, therefore,
irrespective of quantum of compensation in this particular case, the
Insurance Company has decided to challenge it.
5. The legislature has given the remedy of appeal under Section 173 of the
Motor Vehicles Act against awards of Claims Tribunal and as per Section
173(2), appeal against an award of Tribunal is barred if the amount in dispute
is less than Rs.10,000/- which has been enhanced to Rs.1.00 Lakh by the
Amendment Act.
6. The question that whether once the legislature has refused to allow
appeal for awards below Rs.1.00 Lakh, the Insurance Company or any other
person can file revision against the award, was considered by a Special
Bench of five-Judges of High Court in the case of National Insurance
Company v. Shrikant Vinod Tiwari and others , 2007 (2) J.L.J. 138 . At that
relevant point of time, the threshold limit was Rs.10,000/- and the Special
Bench came to conclusion that a party cannot be left remediless and since
revision is not barred under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, therefore, the
revision would lie under Section 115 CPC, though on limited grounds. The
Special Bench held as under:-
“18. We may further reiterate that for examining the correctness of
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PREM SHANKAR
MISHRA
Signing time: 20-03-2026
11:04:51
3 CR-957-2024
the award, scope of Section 115 CPC is limited and the award
passed will not be disturbed unless following grounds are made
out by the petitioner:
(i) the award so passed is without jurisdiction or in excess of
jurisdiction vested with the Tribunal.
(ii) the award so passed, if allowed to stand would occasion in
failure of justice or cause irreparable injury to the party against
whom it was made.
Some illustrations wherein the cases under these categories can be
examined are as under:
(i) award where insurance policy has not been issued by the
Insurance Company.
(ii) Tribunal has recorded a finding that injuries received by the
Claimant are not caused during the use or arising out of use of
motor vehicle yet compensation is awarded.
(iii) Where owner of the vehicle feels that Insurance Company has
been improperly exonerated from payment of compensation.
(iv) Claimant may claim the amount of compensation such as loss
of suffering or medical treatment which has not been awarded by
the Claims Tribunal though sufficient evidence is available on
record.”
7. The Special Bench held that revision would not lie at the drop of a hat in
routine matter but would lie only in special circumstances. This may be
when the award is without jurisdiction or excess of jurisdiction, would
occasion any failure of justice or cause irreparable injury to the aggrieved
party, where the insurance policy was not issued by the Insurance Company,
when despite finding that the injuries are not relatable to the motor vehicle
yet compensation is awarded, where the owner has been cast upon liability
by exonerating the Insurance Company or where the claimant may claim the
quantum to be at lower side.
8. The Special Bench did not grant any liberty to the Insurance Company
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PREM SHANKAR
MISHRA
Signing time: 20-03-2026
11:04:51
4 CR-957-2024
to file revisions as a matter of course in place of appeal which has been
specifically barred by the Legislature. No larger legal issue has arisen that is
required to be decided by this Court only. It is not a case where if the award
went unchallenged, the legal issue would have been settled against the
Insurance Company. Nor it is a case where to get the legal issue settled, it
was obligatory for the Company to have invoked the revisional jurisdiction
of this Court in which case it could have been said in terms of paragraph
18(ii) of judgment of the Special Bench that the award would cause failure of
justice or irreversible injury to the party against whom it has been made. It is
not even a case of fraud, or of false implication, where the award if
unchallenged, can be said to occasion failure of justice.
9. The Punjab and Haryana High Court recently in the case of Nirbhai
Singh and another vs. Darshan Singh @ Darshan Singh and others, reported
i n 2025 SCC OnLine P & H 12450 has heavily deprecated the practice of
filing revisions or petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution of India
while holding that when statutory provisions prohibit filing of the statutory
appeal, affected party cannot be permitted to circumvent statutory provisions
of law by invoking the power of superintendence and accordingly the
revision petition was held to be not maintainable. The Punjab and Haryana
High Court held as under:-
“3. Section 173(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
(hereinafter referred to as ‘the MV Act‘) stood amended w.e.f.
01.04.2022 and reads as under:
“(2) No appeal shall lie against any award of
a Claims Tribunal if the amount in dispute in
the appeal is less than one lakh rupees.”
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PREM SHANKAR
MISHRA
Signing time: 20-03-2026
11:04:51
5 CR-957-2024
4. A perusal of the above would show that the amount “ten
thousand” rupees has been replaced by the amount “one lakh” and
admittedly the amount of compensation awarded in the present
case is less than one lakh rupees.
5. In the case of Bharti AXA General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs.
Sahab Singh & Ors. [CR-6131-2016 decided on 19.09.2016], a
Coordinate Bench of this Court 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
prohibit 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.”
10. In view of the aforesaid legal position as discussed by this Court
above, it is clear that though the statutory mandate bars any challenge to the
award which is less than Rs.1.00 Lakh, but since it has been held by a
Special Bench of this Court in case of National Insurance Company Limited
(supra) that in certain circumstances revision can lie and this Court has
already reached a conclusion above that the present case does not fall in
those exceptions. It is not a case where despite small quantum being involved
in the matter, any irreparable loss would have been caused to the Insurance
Company by not challenging the award. The quantum in the present case is
so less that the total cost of litigation of this revision may be equal, if not
more than the amount of award which will be incurred by the Insurance
Company alone and taking into consideration the litigation cost to be
incurred by the opposite party, the total litigation cost in the present case
would far surpass the financial value of the award.
11. Therefore, this Court declines to entertain the present revision by
leaving the legal issues open. It is observed that since there is an appeal
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PREM SHANKAR
MISHRA
Signing time: 20-03-2026
11:04:51
6 CR-957-2024
under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act against death case arising out
of the same accident which is pending before this Court, therefore, dismissal
of this revision would not come in the way of the Insurance Company in
prosecuting MA No.5713 of 2023 and it would not be construed that this
Court has affirmed the award and the grounds raised before this Court shall
be open for the Insurer in that Appeal. This revision is being dismissed only
on the ground of maintainability only.
12. With the aforesaid observations, admission is declined. The Revision is
dismissed.
(VIVEK JAIN)
JUDGE
psm
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PREM SHANKAR
MISHRA
Signing time: 20-03-2026
11:04:51