Simm- magi ‘ @ QT 1N THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR (CHHATTISGARH) WRIT PETITION No. .........3Q.. noog PETITIONER Smt. Kamla Singh Age - 45 Year W/o. Shri Thakur Manohar Singh R/o. Near Head Post OElce, Tilak Nagar ,Bilaspur (C.G.) C I g‘ VERSUS RESPONDENTS :(l) Smt. Dulorin Bai. Age— 37 Years Wd/o. Late Shyam Singh Gond (2) Minor Suraj Singh Gond Agel lYear S/o. Late Shyam Singh Gond Represanted Though natural guardian matter Smt. Dulorin Bai (3) Mukhiram Gond Age - 6O Years S/o. Late Ratiaram .. (4) Smt. Mongara Bai Age-57 Years W/o. Mukhiram Gond ‘, All Resident of Village — Rahangi, RS. Hirri, Tahsil- Bilha, Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.) (5) The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Through Branch Manager, Branch Office Rajendra Nagar Chowk, Bilapur C.G. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSITITUTION OF INDIA XI—HC-22 12-1 -2006, Shri Sachin Singh Rajput‘ oetitioner. msei for respondents no 1 to 4 Shn N K Agrawal Sr AdVocate With Shn Deeoak Gupta counsei for resnondent no 5 Heard. By this petition under Art‘ ie 227 of the Constitution of India the oehtmner has chalienued the orFer whereby no fault habrhty by wav of Interim award has been passed no1to4 They put appearance through counsei and an obrectlon has been raised regardrng the mamtamabmty of the writ .etmon on the ground thatagamst the interim award the appeat is pr vided under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicies Act. Reiiance is placed upon the Larger Bench judgment of the High Cburt of MP. in the case o Orientai Insurance Company Limited vs Chintaman and others reoo ed in 1995 JLJ 4 Notices were issued to Shri Gautam Khetraoal cor e resoondents/clarmants it is contended that an aopeai under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act hes against the order of interim comoensatron it Its aiso contended that the determination of rioht or liability under Section 40 of the Motor Vehicle Act amounts to an award as contemplated m Sec on 168 of the Act The aforesaid iudgment o the Larger Bench of the High Court of \ Madhya Pradesh is oertinent been heid as under. \ , para 11 of the said judgment, it has [View an Shri Anant BaipaL counsel for the d in favour of the claimants/respondents X1-HC-22 W ? 33$ W K. ”11. !f the defennination of fhe compensatio payable'under Sectian 140‘ of {he Act is nof to be regarded as an award, cen‘ain beneficiai aspecfs of Sections 168 and 173 w uld be denied to me claimants who may be dragged to th superior Courts by chailenges againsrsuch detenninatio . The benertorSection 163(2) requiring the .Tribuna/ to liver copies of the award to the > arties expeditioasly, of ub—section (3) of Section 168 requiring the person liable to deposit the amount awarded by the Trihunai within 30 ays, and of the requirement in the proviso to sub-‘sectio (1) 'of Section ‘173 to deposit Rs.‘25.000/- orfl'fty perce tof the award, Whichever is less, in the High Court as precondition for entertainment of the appeal, wiil not be vaiiable to the claimants. it is not possible to accep that the legislature which introduces no fault liabii in the 1939 Act and the 1988 Act intended to deprive s ch claimants of the'beneficial provisions referred to ab . if the patty against whom a ciaim is made for com nsation under superior Court either by Way of revisio or under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia, the claimants will not secure the benem that he would h ve otherwise secured under Section 1 73(1) of the Act. It is not possible to accept that, such was the legislative in ntion.” Para 14 of the aforesaid judgment iso specifically states that the revision and the writ petition do not apply, which reeds as under: “14. There cannot be any ubt that where an appeal lies revision cannot lie. This p‘ ciple has been introduced in Section 115 of the Code o Civil Procedure by means of sub-section (2) incorporated by Amendment‘Act No. t 10 of ~ 1975. Sub-section {2) state that the High Court shail not ‘\,' under this. section vary or everse any decree or order \ against which an appeal re either to the High Court or io‘ \6ny COL”? subordinate There .‘ Since we haVe held The? at? \ [the W w ? n p i o' e a‘qrman wm mfewmv.féa Wmw?§f§<€rm aqmm Wafga -‘2/ XI—HC—22 3am? W mmw§03%/§Y W 299. ‘WWW man ‘- mmmm K 37mm’éa‘mm mamm > mm- . q ‘ .._3‘/ éppal appeal lies lies: it it follows wili also that follovJ a ‘evision that the does impugneo not ile oworo Since is (he not iiabie to be challenged under Articib 227 of the Constitution of India. Having considered the fac and circumstances of the case and materiai on record andrin View oft e aforesaid judgment of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh an’d further in view of the settled law that the order of interim aWard is not iiabie to be challenged under Article 227 of the Constitution of lndia, the instant writ petition is not maintainable. Accordingly; the writ petition is dismissed as not maintainabie. At this stage, teamed counsel for the petitioner prays that the petitioner may be allowed to prefer an. appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Veh‘icies Act. ‘ The prayer is not opposed“ The petitioner may prefer an appeai under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act. if so desire. The certified copy of the impugned order as we" as the orlinal documents flied alo 1gwith the writ petition may be returned to the petitioner so a‘s to enable 1er to prefer an appeal, after retaining photocopies of the documents. Consequently. M.W.P. No.4lJ68/2005 also stands disposed of. Sdl- Fakhruddin Judge [thewr