TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Article 227 cannot substitute for statutory appeal under Section 173; supervisory review limited to jurisdictional excesses</h1> SC allowed the appeal and set aside the High Court judgment and order. The Court held the insurer's petition under Article 227 was misconceived because a ... Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal - Maintainability of a petition - accident - Tribunal awarded compensation - insurer's appeal under Section 173 - HELD THAT:- The petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution by the insurer was wholly misconceived. Where a statutory right to file an appeal has been provided for, it is not open to High Court to entertain a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution. Even if where a remedy by way of an appeal has not been provided for against the order and judgment of a District Judge, the remedy available to the aggrieved person is to file a revision before the High Court under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Where remedy for filing a revision before the High Court under Section 115 of CPC has been expressly barred by a State enactment, only in such case a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution would lie and not under Article 226 of the Constitution. The supervisory jurisdiction conferred on the High Courts under Article 227 of the Constitution is confined only to see whether an inferior court or Tribunal has proceeded within its parameters and not to correct an error apparent on the face of the record, much less of an error of law. In exercising the supervisory power under Article 227 of the Constitution, the High Court does not act as an Appellate Court or the Tribunal. It is also not permissible to a High Court on a petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution to review or re-weigh the evidence upon which the inferior court or Tribunal purports to have passed the order or to correct errors of law in the decision. We are of the view that since the insurer has a remedy by filling an appeal before the High Court, the High Court ought not to have entertained the petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution and for that reason, the judgement and order under challenge deserves to be set aside. We, accordingly, set aside the judgment and order under appeal. The appeal is allowed. Issues involved: Appeal against the reduction of compensation amount by the Division Bench of the High Court, maintainability of a petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution by the insurer, statutory right of appeal for the insurer under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.Judgment Summary:The appellant's son died in a motor vehicle accident, leading to a claim petition before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal. The Tribunal awarded compensation, which the insurer appealed against. The High Court reduced the compensation amount, prompting the insurer to file a petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. The appellant contended that the insurer's appeal under Section 173 of the Act was the appropriate remedy, not a petition under Article 227. The Supreme Court agreed, emphasizing the statutory right of appeal for insurers under Section 173 of the Act.The Court clarified that an insurer can appeal against a Tribunal's award on limited grounds specified in Section 149(2) of the Act. However, if collusion or lack of contestation occurs, the insurer can seek permission to contest the claim on the insured's grounds. The Court rejected the argument that an insurer could file a petition under Article 226/227 due to limited appeal grounds, citing the legal position that the appeal's scope is defined by Section 149(2) of the Act.Highlighting the insurer's statutory right to appeal, the Court ruled that filing a petition under Article 227 was misconceived. The supervisory jurisdiction of High Courts under Article 227 is limited to ensuring lower courts act within their authority, not correcting legal errors. The Court set aside the High Court's judgment, emphasizing that the insurer should have pursued the appeal route under Section 173 of the Act. The appeal was allowed, with no costs imposed, and the insurer was granted the option to file an appeal if permissible under the law.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
