@ 1‘ w ; JO IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR gCHHATTISGAR§[ . / WRIT PETITION No. grgazé M / 2005- PETITIONER iSmt. Kamla Singh Age - 45 W/o. Shri Thakur Manohar Singh R/o. Near Head Post 0&ice, Tilak Nagar Bilaspur (C.G.) VERSUS N RESPONDENTS (1) Sakhadas Manikpuri Age- 40 Years S/o. Daya Das Manikpuri I Resident of Village - Indrapuri, Hirri Mines, P.S. Hirri, Tahsil- Bilha, Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.) The New India Assurance C0. Ltd. Through Branch Manager, Branch OfEce Rajendra Nagar Chcwk, Bilapur CG. / WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSITITUTION OF INDIA XI—HC~22 h 12-1-2006 Shri Sachin Singh Rajput ‘and Shri Anant Bajpai, counsel for the i None for respondent no.1. Shri N.K. Agrawal, Sr.'Advacate, with Shri 'Deepak Gupta, counsel far respondent no.2. Heard. By this petition under Adinle 227 of the Constitution of india the petitioner has chalienged the ‘orcier whereby no fault liability by way of interim award has been passed in avour of the claimant/respondentnoj. The LargerBench judgm of the High Court of M.P. in the case of Oriental Insurance Comoan Limited vs. Chi taman and others reported in 1995 JLJ 4 is perti ent wherein it has been held that an appeal under Section 173 of the otor Vehicles Act lies against the order of interim compensation. it has aso been held that the determination of right or liability under Section 14 of the Motor Vehicle Act amounts to an award as contefnplated in Section 68' of the’Act unden in para 11 of the aforesad said judgment. it has been held as “1 1. ...... If the detei ination of the compensation payable under Section 140 of the Act is not to be reaarded as ' an awar certain beneficial aspects of Sections 168 and 173 uld be denied to the claimants who may be dragged to ‘ superior Courts by challenges against each determinati n. The benefit of Section 168(2) requiring the Tribunal to IiVer copies of the award to the parties expeditiously, ofi'sub-section (3) of Section 168 requiring the person iiablb to deposit the amount aWarded [statfee petitianer. F e t wmm W 290 I ma;a ‘am mgn afga mfamma«@m ‘éa'emm RJ E .Vg by the Tribunal within 0 days, and of the mquirementm the pros/$0 to sub—sec bn (1) of Secfion, 173 to deposit R‘s.25,000/— or %y pe en? of the aWard, whichever isr g less, ih the High Court as preconditian for entertainMent of ‘fhe appeal, will not e available lathe claimants. lt is ’ nat possible to ’ac pt that the legislature which introduces no faul! Iiab lify in_ the1939 Ac! and the 1988 . Act intended to depri such claimant§ of ihe beheliciai provisions referred to ve. if the pany against whom a claim is made force ensation under superior Coui't either by way of revi on or under'Article 226 of the Constitution of indie; claimants will not secure the. benerit‘ that he Woul have otherwise secured under Section 173(1) of the . It is not possible to accept that V such was the legislativ intention.” Para 1'4 of the aforesaid judgmt also specifically states that the revision and the writ petition do not appi which reads as under: “14. There cannot be an doubt that where an appeal ties revision cannot lie. Thi principle has been introduced "in Section 115 of the of Civil Procedureby means of subsection (2) incorp by Amendment Act No. 1 10 of 1975. Sub-section (2) s ies that the High Court shall not ‘ under this section vary‘or reverse any decree or order ~ against which an appeal ties either to the High Court orto- any Court subordinate in reto. Since we have-held that an - appeal lies, itfollows the a revision does notlie. Sincethe appeal lies, it wiii also fol w that the impugned award is not liabie to be chalienged Article 227 of the. Constitution of indie.” ’ Having considered the f cis and ‘circumstances of theicase and materiai on record and in View o the aforesaidjudgment of the High Courts ’ of Madhya Pradesh and further in view of the settied law that-the order of é a o p i A t + y C o u r