Limited statutory appeal cannot be bypassed through writ or supervisory jurisdiction for reappreciation of compensation merits.

A statutory appeal under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 with limited grounds cannot be enlarged by invoking Articles 226 and 227 to challenge an insurer's liability or seek reappreciation of compensation on merits. The text states that the right of appeal is a creature of statute, and where the legislature confines the insurer to the grounds in Section 149(2), the High Court should not be used as a substitute appellate forum. Article 227 remains supervisory only, limited to jurisdictional control and not correction of factual errors, weighing of evidence, or reassessment of quantum.

---

---

Issues: Whether an insurer, having a statutory remedy of appeal under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 on limited grounds, could invoke Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India to challenge the award of the Claims Tribunal and have the High Court reappreciate the merits and quantum of compensation.

Analysis: The right of appeal is a creature of statute and its scope cannot be enlarged by resorting to writ or supervisory jurisdiction merely because the statutory appeal is confined to specified grounds. Where the statute provides an appeal to the High Court and limits the insurer to the grounds enumerated in Section 149(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the High Court cannot entertain a petition under Articles 226 and 227 to bypass that limitation. The supervisory power under Article 227 is confined to seeing that the subordinate court or tribunal acts within jurisdiction and does not extend to correcting errors of fact, reweighing evidence, or functioning as an appellate forum.

Conclusion: The insurer's petition under Articles 226 and 227 was not maintainable because a statutory appeal was available, and the High Court ought not to have entertained it. The impugned judgment was therefore set aside and the appeal was allowed.

Ratio Decidendi: When a statute provides a specific appellate remedy with limited grounds, those limitations cannot be circumvented by invoking Articles 226 and 227; Article 227 is supervisory and cannot be used as a substitute for appeal or for reappreciation of evidence and merits.

---