C.R. No. 264 of 2009 1 IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No. 264 of 2009 Date of Decision : 20.7.2009 The Oriental Insurance Company Limited .......... Petitioner Versus Som Nath & another ...... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present : Mr. D.P. Gupta, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. Ashwani Arora, Advocate for respondent No.1. Mr. Vipin K. Bali, Advocate for respondent No.2. **** VINOD K. SHARMA, J. (ORAL) This revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the award dated 12.9.2008, passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chandigarh in MACT Case No. 14 of 9.5.2006. Respondent No.1 claimant filed a petition under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, claiming compensation on account of, injuries suffered by him in a motor vehicle accident, which took place on 9.6.1999. The claimant was driving the car No. CH01-Y-7640, which met with an accident with a truck No. HRX-3999, on Chandigarh-Ambala road. C.R. No. 264 of 2009 2 The claimant suffered multiple injuries, and accordingly claimed compensation. The learned Tribunal passed an award for a sum of Rs. 1,86,000/- ( Rupees one lac and eighty six thousand only ) along with interest from the date of filing of claim petition. The liability of car owner and the insurance company was held joint and several. Section 149(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act reads as under :- “No sum shall be payable by an insurer under sub- section (1) in respect of any judgment or award unless, before the commencement of the proceedings in which the judgment or award is given the insurer had notice through the Court or, as the case may be, the Claims Tribunal on the bringing of the proceedings, or in respect of such judgment or award so long as execution is stayed thereon pending an appeal; and an insurer to whom notice of the bringing of any such proceedings is so given shall be entitled to be made a party thereto and to defend the action on any of the following grounds, namely:- (a) that there has been a breach of a specified condition of the policy, being one of the following conditions, namely :- (i) a condition excluding the use of the vehicle- (a) for hire on reward, where the vehicle is on the date of the contract of insurance a vehicle not covered by a permit to ply for hire or reward, or (b) for organised racing and speed testing, or C.R. No. 264 of 2009 3 (c) for a purpose not allowed by the permit under which the vehicle is used, where the vehicle is a transport vehicle, or (d) without side-car being attached where the vehicle is a motor cycle; or (ii) A condition excluding driving by a named person or persons or by any person who is not duly licensed, or by any person who has been disqualified for holding or obtaining a driving licence during the period of disqualification; or (iii) a condition excluding liability for injury caused or contributed to by conditionis of war, civil war, riot or civil commotion; or (b) that the policy is void on the ground that it was obtained by the non-disclosure of a material fact or by a representation of fact which was false in some material particular.” In view of the bar contained under Section 149(2) of the Act the appeal by the Insurance Company is barred. This revision petition has been moved by the petitioner on the plea, that the compensation awarded, was more than the one prescribed under IInd Schedule. Therefore, the award deserved to be modified / set aside. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner was, that as appeal by the insurance company is barred under Section 149(2) of the Act on the ground raised herein, therefore, the petitioner is entitled to C.R. No. 264 of 2009 4 invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to challenge the award. This plea of the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted. This is not a case where no remedy is provided, but legislature in its wisdom barred the filing of appeal by the Insurance Company against award except on the ground given in Section 149(2) of the Act. Once there is a statutory bar to maintain the appeal, the statutory bar, cannot be overcome by invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Dismissed. 20.7.2009 ( VINOD K. SHARMA ) 'sp' JUDGE