1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR United India Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Rampratap & ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.5074/2004) Date of Order :- 17.07.2009 HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.S.CHAUHAN Mr.N.S. Chauhan, for the petitioner. Mr.Dhanjay Bhardwaj, for the respondents. The petitioner, Insurance Company has challenged the interim award dated 09.12.2003, whereby the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Aklera, District Jhalawar ('the learned Tribunal', for short) had directed that a compensation of Rs.50,000/- be paid to the claimants under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ('the Act', for short). It has further directed that 50% of the said amount shall be paid by the Insurance Company. Interestingly, on 09.12.2003, the learned Tribunal has also dismissed the claim petition filed by the claimants and yet has directed the Insurance Company as aforementioned. While hearing this writ petition, the Court had opined that the writ petition was not maintainable as an order passed under Section 140 of the Act is an appealable award. Therefore, a civil miscellaneous appeal should have been filed before this Court. 2 Mr. N.S. Chauhan, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has contended that prior to the judgment delivered in the case of Sadhana Lodh Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd & Anr. [(2003) 3 SCC 524], an interim award could be challenged under a writ petition. Since the interim award has been passed in the present case prior to the judgment delivered in the case of Sadhana Lodh (supra), therefore, the petitioner is justified in challenging the interim award under the writ jurisdiction of this Court. He has further contended that the case of Sadhana Lodh (supra) has been followed subsequently by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Smt. Yallwwa & Ors. Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr. [2007 (2) WLC 589 (SC)]. A bare perusal of Sadhana Lodh's judgment clearly reveals that it was pronounced in January 24, 2003, whereas the impugned order was passed on 09.12.2003. Hence, the impugned order has been passed much after the judgment was delivered in the case of Sadhana Lodh (supra). Moreover, the present writ petition has been filed on 21.07.2004. By this date, the judgment of Sadhana Lodh (supra) was well publicized. Therefore, the justification offered by the learned counsel is unacceptable. In the case of Sadhana Lodh (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court had clearly held that where appeal is provided as a statutory right, then the grounds of challenge cannot be 3 enlarged by filing a petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India. It has further concluded that an Insurer could not challenge an award passed by a tribunal under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India. The same view has been reiterated in the case of Smt. Yallwwa & Ors. (surpa). Considering the fact that the impugned order had been passed after the decision pronounced in Sadhana Lodh (supra), considering the fact that the present writ petition has been filed much after the said judgment, the present writ petition is not maintainable. Therefore, the writ petition is, hereby, dismissed as non-maintainable. However, liberty is given to the Insurance Company to challenge the impugned order by way of filing of civil miscellaneous appeal before this Court. (R.S.CHAUHAN)J. Manoj Solanki-