Chiteshwar Nath Dubey @ C.N. Dubey vs Maheshwari Manjhian

Anil Kumar Sinha, J.—Seen the office note as well as the note of the Registrar.

The instant civil revision application has been filed against the order dated 27.3.2000 passed by the Motor Vehicles Claims Tribunal, Bokaro at Chas, whereby the Petitioner has been ordered to pay the amount of Rs. 50,000/- by way of interim compensation to the claimant u/s 140 of the M.V. Act.

The Registrar has pointed out in his note that against the aforesaid order the appeal would not lie and the remedy is revision, but further report of the stamp reporter goes to show that an appeal would lie u/s 173 of the M.V. Act against the order passed u/s 140 of the said Act in view of the Division Bench decision of this Court reported in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Mohiuddin Kureshi alias Md. Moya and Others . In the decision referred to above, their lordships have held that order passed u/s 140 of the said Act is also an Award within the meaning of Section 173 thereof and, thus, an appeal is maintainable. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner has relied upon the Single Bench decision of this Court in the case of Sri Vidya Sagar Singh v. Shanti Devi and Ors. wherein it has been held that an application for revision against an order of Claims Tribunal for payment of interim compensation u/s 140 of the M.V. Act is maintainable. The decision reported in AIR 1985 Punjab & Haryana page 96 has been relied upon in the decision just now referred to.

In the Division Bench decision of this Court as reported in 1994 (2) PUR 79 their lordships have held that an order passed u/s 140 of the M.V. Act is also an Award, thus, as appeal will be maintainable but in the said decision no point was raised that a revision against the order passed u/s 140 of the said Act would be maintainable or not.

In the particular facts and circumstances of the case their Lordships have no doubt held that the order passed u/s 140 of the M.V. Act is also an Award within the meaning of Section 173 of the Act, but in the decision of this Court reported in 1991 (2) PLJR 820 Vidya Sagar Singh v. Shanti Devi and Ors. it is manifest that a revision would lie against an order passed u/s 140 of the M.V. Act. Therefore, relying upon the decision reported in the case of Vidya Sagar Singh (supra), I am of the view that a revision would lie against an order passed u/s 140 of the M.V. Act specially in view of the fact that in the Division Bench decision referred to above, this point has not been specifically answered to.

Office is, accordingly, directed to proceed in the matter.