S.S.Kulshrestha, J. - (1.) Heard Mr. Ram Singh, Advocate, appearing on behalf of claimant-respondent and Mr. P.K. Bisariya from the side of the opposite party No. 4 and also perused the materials on record.
(2.) This revision under section 115 the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, has been brought against the judgment and order dated 12.5.2003 passed by learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal/Addl. District Judge Court No. 5, Fatehpur, in M.A.C. No. 144 of 2002, whereby granting compensation in the tune of Rs. 1,15,648 together with interest at the rate of 7 per cent per annum against United India Insurance Co. Ltd. (which is hereinafter referred to as 'the revisionist'). Further, certain directions were also given against the claimant for lodging report against the claimant for fabricating false bills so as to multiply the claim. It has also been urged by the learned counsel for the revisionist that the Tribunal has not properly evaluated the evidence on record. There was ample evidence that the claimant was rashly and negligently driving the motor cycle which met with an accident with Tempo No. UP 71-A 6098. Whatever the compensation has been awarded could well be apportioned by New India Assurance Co. Ltd. with which that motor cycle was insured. It has further been mentioned that bills submitted by the claimant were found to be false and fabricated and so on those bills the compensation ought not to be awarded.
(3.) This revision was resisted by the claimant and also from the side of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. with which motor cycle was insured. Before proceeding to take up this revision, learned counsel for the revisionist referring to the decision given by the Supreme Court in the case of Sadhana Lodh v. National Insurance Co. Ltd., 2003 0 ACJ 505 (SC), urged that the appeal against the order of the Tribunal would be maintainable only on limited grounds specified in section 149 (2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Where no forum is provided in that situation revision alone is maintainable. In this regard it shall be useful to quote the observations made by the Apex Court in the case of Sadhana Lodh (supra)'. "The right of appeal is a statutory right and where the law provides remedy by filing an appeal on limited grounds, the grounds of challenge cannot be enlarged by filing a petition under Article 226/ 227 of the Constitution on the premise that insurer has limited grounds available for challenging the award given by the Claims Tribunal. Section 149 (2) of the Act limits the insurer to file an appeal on those enumerated grounds and the appeal being a product of the statute it is not open to an insurer to take any plea other than those provided under section 149 (2) of the Act. [See National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nicolletta Rohtagi, 2002 0 ACJ 1950 (SC)]...Even where a remedy by way of an appeal has not been provided for against the order and judgment of a District Judge, the remedy available to the aggrieved person is to file a revision before the High Court under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Where remedy for filing a revision before the High Court under section 115 of Code of Civil Procedure has been expressly barred by a State enactment, only in such case a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution would lie and not under Article 226 of the Constitution.";