Santosh Kumar and Another Vs. State of M.P.

.....of civil procedure, 1908.[c.a. no. 5/1908]. section 115: [a.k. patnaik, cj, deepak verma, s.k. kulshrestha, s.s. kha & a.m. sapre, jj] award of motor vehicles tribunal - amount in dispute being less than rs.10,000/- held, remedy of appeal under section 173(2) of m.v. act, 1988 is not available to assail award passed by the m.a.c.t if the amount in dispute is less than rs.10,000/-. aggrieved party has the remedy of revision under section 115 of c.p.c., the constitutional remedy under articles 226/227 stands barred in view of alternative efficacious remedy under section 115 of c.p.c., -- section 115: revision against award of motor vehicles tribunal - scope of interference - held, for examining the correctness of the award passed by m.a.c.t. scope of section 115 c.p.c., is limited and the award passed will not be disturbed unless following grounds are made out by the petitioner the award so passed is without jurisdiction or in excess of jurisdiction vested with the tribunal. the award so passed, if allowed to stand, would occasion in failure of justice or cause irreparable injury to the party against whom it was made. some illustrations wherein the cases under these categories can be examined are (i) award where insurance policy has not been issued by the insurance company; (ii) tribunal has recorded a finding that injuries received by the claimant are not caused during the use of arising out of use of motor vehicle yet compensation is awarded; (iii) where the owner of the vehicle feels that insurance company has been improperly exonerated from payment of compensation; and (iv) claimant may claim the amount of compensation such as loss of suffering or medical treatment, which has not been awarded by the claims tribunal though sufficient evidence is available on record.- section 173(2); remedy of appeal under held, remedy of appeal under section 173(2) is not available to assail award passed by the m.a.c.t if the amount in dispute is less than rs.10,000/-...........voluntarily.3. it is stated by the learned counsel for the applicants that the applicant no. 1 santosh kumar has been arrested but not the applicant no. 2 mulabai. without making any comment as to the legality or propriety of the order passed by the learned additional sessions judge, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, this court is of the view that the ends of justice shall be served if the applicant no. 1 santosh kumar be granted bail if he furnishes fresh personal bond and bail bond each in equal sum as may be directed by the trial court to its satisfaction. the purpose of issuance of non-bailable warrants of arrest against the applicants in this case appears to keep them present on the date of hearing so that the trial court proceed. it is, hereby, directed accordingly. so far as the applicant no. 2 mulabai is concerned, the learned counsel for the applicants states that she has not yet been arrested and also she has not surrendered herself before the trial court so far after the date of impugned order. under the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice it would be proper to direct the additional sessions judge that in case, the applicant no. 2 mulabai appears before the court on 6th of september, 2000 or even before that date, then the trial court shall withdraw the order impugned dated 7-7-2000, so far as it relates to issuance of non-bailable warrant of arrest against the applicant no. 2 mulabai and shall call the non-bailable warrant of arrest issued against the applicant no. 2, back unexecuted, if it has already been so issued. in the meanwhile, it is directed that the applicant no. 2 mulabai shall not be arrested pursuant to the aforesaid non-bailable warrant of arrest issued against her by the impugned order.4. in view of the aforesaid directions, this revision petition as well as m. (cr.) p. no. 369/2000 are hereby disposed of accordingly.5. c.c. as per rules.