(Prayer: Civil Revision Petitions filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the judgment and decree dated 22.03.2002 made in M.C.O.P.Nos.1033, 1474, 1475 and 1034 of 2001 respectively on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (III Additional District Judge) Dharmapuri.)

1. Preamble:

1.1. On the State being a litigant:

The lay-out on litigation costs and executive time by the State and its agencies is so staggering these days because of the large amount of litigation in which it is involved that a positive and wholesome policy of cutting back on the volume of law suits by the twin methods of not being tempted into forensic show downs where a reasonable adjustment is feasible and ever offering to extinguish a pending proceeding on just terms, giving the legal mentors of Government some initiative and authority in this behalf.

(Ref: Kerala High Court in 1971 Ker LJ 723)

1.2. In this country the State is the largest litigant to-day and huge expenditure involved makes a big draft on the public exchequer. In the context of expanding dimensions of State activity and responsibility, is it unfair to expect, finer sense and sensibility in its litigation policy, the absence of which, in the present case, has led the Railway callously and cantankerously to resist an action by its own employee a small man, by urging a mere technical plea which has been pursued right upon the summit

Court here and has been negatived in the judgment just pronounced ..It is not right for a welfare State like ours to be Janus-faced and while formulating the humanist project of legal aid to the poor, contest the claims of poor employees under its pleading limitation and the like.

(Ref: Dilbagh Rai Jarry v. Union of India and others, 1974 (3) SCC 554 [LQ/SC/1973/324] )

Notwithstanding these warnings issued by the Courts, the Insurer is before this Court.

2. Case Projected:

2.1. In these Petitions, the National Insurance Company Limited which is a Central Government owned Company is the Petitioner/Insurer. In all these Civil Revision Petitions, the quantum of compensation awarded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal is only Rs.6,000/-. It is a classic case where a public sector is spending more amount than what is to be paid as compensation to the Claimants. These Civil Revision Petitions were filed notwithstanding the fact that the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 had forbidden any Appeals being filed as the claim amount did not exceed sum of Rs.10,000/-

2.2 It is necessary to refer to Section 173(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which reads as follows:

173: Appeals

(1) .Omitted

(2) No Appeal shall like against any award of a Claims Tribunal, if the amount in dispute In the Appeal is less than ten thousand rupees.

2.3. M/s. Thangavel, Periya Sami and Kaveri along with several others traveled in a van, which is a goods carrier after making payments to the Driver on the fateful day of 24.06.2001 from Kattiyampatti market to Sevattipatti and the van met with an accident. It was insured with the Petitioner-Insurer. After taking treatment, the injured persons made claims and all the three Claimants examined themselves before the Claims Tribunal, The Claims Tribunal did not grant full compensation claimed by them but only ordered Rs.6,000/- each together with the Counsel Fee of Rs.1,000/-.

2.4. Though the compensation was ordered as early as 22.03.2002, the Appeals were field only in November 2002. The papers were returned to carry out certain defects by the Registry on 28.01.2003 and granted 10 days time to rectify those defects. But, however, the papers were never represented on time and it took an unusual delay of four years.

2.5. The reasons for the delay is set out in paragraph 4 of the Affidavit filed in support of the Petitions, which is as follows:

4. The concern file was misplaced with other disposed files and the same was traced only on the reminder. However, the same was found on the reminder by the Counsel and forwarded and the Revision Petition was represented on 26.02.2007.

3. Whether such Petitions are maintainable:

3.1. The ground urged in the main Revision Petitions is that the Insurance Company did not cover passenger traffic. However, the learned Counsel is unable to submit as to how such a Revision is maintainable when the legislature itself never provided for any Appeal under Section 173(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act.

3.2. The purpose of legislature providing such compensation against third party claims as set out by the Supreme Court are as follows:

13. Why then has the legislature insisted on a person using a motor vehicle in a public place to insure against third party risk by enacting Section 94 ...

. The provision has been inserted in order to protect the members of the community traveling in vehicles or using the roads from the risk attendant upon the user of motor vehicles on the roads

. In other words, the legislature has insisted and made it incumbent on the user of a motor vehicle to be armed with an Insurance Policy covering third party risks which is in conformity with the provisions enacted by the legislature. It is so provided in order to ensure that the injured victims of automobile accidents or the dependents of the victims of fatal accidents are really compensated in terms of money and not it terms of promise. Such a benign provision enacted by the legislature having regard to the fact that in the modern age the use of motor vehicles notwithstanding the attendant hazards, has become an inescapable fact of life, has to be interpreted in a meaningful manner which serves rather than defeats the purpose of the legislation. The provision has, therefore, to be interpreted in the twilight of the aforesaid perspective.

(Ref: Skandia Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Kokilaben Chandravadan and others, 1937 (2) SCC 654)

3.3. As to the maintainability of such a Revision under Section 115 of Code of Civil Procedure itself has come up for consideration by various High Courts. It is unnecessary to refer to all those decisions. It is suffice to refer only to some decisions in this regard:

3.4. The Himachal Pradesh High Court in Mittar Singh v. Ashish Kumar and others, 1998 (2) ACJ 1200 in paragraph 9 observed as follows:

9. The Motor Vehicles Act is aimed to provide relief by way of compensation to the injured or the deceased in the given situation. The exercise of the powers by this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India should not be so exercised in order to circumvent the statutory provisions contained in a particular Act. Sub-section (2) of Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act clearly lays down that no Appeal shall lie against any award of a Claims Tribunal if the amount in dispute in the Appeal is less than Rs.10,000/-. The above said provision, thus, has to be read or construed in the manner so that the object of the provisions is not diverted.

3.5. The Kerala High Court in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thalassery and others, 1999 (2) ACJ 1015 in paragraph 2 observed as follows:

2. Once the legislature in its wisdom has thought it fit that no Appeal shall lie against any award of a Claims Tribunal, if the amount in dispute in the Appeal is less than Rs.10,000/- this Court cannot lend its aid to the Petitioner to circumvent the statutory bar by enabling it to question the award collaterally by filing a Petition under Articles 226 and 277 of the Constitution of India. This Court cannot sit in judgment over the legislative wisdom and policy in regard to filing of Appeals, more so when it is remembered that right of Appeal is not a vested right or a Constitutional right but a creature of the statute. There is no inherent right of Appeal from the original forum unless such a right created by the statute which creates the forum.

3.6. The Madhys Pradesh High Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Meghnath and another, 2001 (1) ACJ 627 in paragraph 20 observed as follows:

20. If it is held that Revision is maintainable at the behest of the Insurer of other persons liable to pay the compensation, where the amount is less than Rs.10,000 the intent of the legislature would be defeated in its letter and spirit. Simpliciter, fact that the Tribunal is having trappings of the Civil Court, does not mean that in every case where the Appeal is specifically barred resort can be had to Revision. In other words, if Appeal lies on a question of law or a substantial question of law, Revisionsal powers cannot be invoked of the same Court on other grounds under Section 115, Civil Procedure Code. Revision is not a vested right.. By necessary implication of the terminology used in Section 173, sub-section (2), right of Revision against a final award is not available. The Act envisages finality to be attached to the awards for an amount less than Rs.10,000. Therefore, Revision being not a vested right it cannot be said that right of Revision is available even when the Tribunal is held to be Civil Court having the trappings of a Civil Court.

3.7 The Bombay High Court in Subhash v. Kiran and others, 2002 (3) ACJ 2101 in paragraphs 8 and 9 observed as follows:

8. .it is not permissible to frustrate the scheme provided by the law. If powers under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India are allowed to be exercised, then the entire scheme envisaged in Section 173(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 will be defeated. If regard is had to the legal scheme with regard to conferment of finality to the awards, which are less than Rs.10,000, it is not at all permissible to nullify the legal scheme provided under Section 173 (2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Therefore, powers under Articles 226 and 227 cannot be permitted to be invoked and are not to be exercised to perpetuate breach of law of breach of limits prescribed by law.

9. In case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Member , M.A.CT., Udupi, 2002 ACJ 189 (Karnataka), the single Judge of Karnataka High Court has held that powers under Article 226 of the Constitution cannot be allowed to be exercised to render statutory provision nugatory or redundant. In the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Vipul, 1999 ACJ 695 (HP), the Single Judge of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh has held that order of the Tribunal granting compensation less that Rs.10,000 cannot challenged in a Petition under Article 227. In case if Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd v. Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thalassery, 1999 ACJ 1015 (Kerala) Single Judge of Kerala High Court has held that the order of Tribunal awarding compensation less than Rs.10,000 cannot be questioned in a Petition under Articles 226 and 227 if the Constitution. It is held that statutory power cannot be circumvented by filing Petition under Article 226 or Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

4. Whether the delay can be condoned

4.1. As can be seen in the above said decisions, the Insurer were only the Nationalised Insurance Companies and notwithstanding such precedents, the Insurer is before this Court with these Civil Revision Petitions. Even in prosecuting such Revisions, due diligence is not shown and the reason adduced for condoning the delay of 1331 days (apprx. 4 years) is also not convincing. This Court is not inclined to condone such enormous delay.

4.2. Even on these Applications which was filed in the year 2007, the Respondents were not served till date. Even after 1200 days, the Respondents are yet to be served. The notice sent through Court had come back with an endorsement no such addressee and in respect of the call made for fresh notice, the batta is yet to be filed.

4.3. When the matter came up before this Court, this Court directed the learned Counsel for the Petitioner to furnish the correct address of the Claimants. Though the Insurance Companies always engage private investigating agencies to check the veracity of the claims, in this case were unable to find out the correct address of the Respondents. It is not as if the Claimants are fictitious persons. Before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, 3 of them have examined as C.W.1 to C.W.3. After three adjournments, on 22.07.2010, the learned Council informed this Court that they are unable to locate the Respondents and they intend seeking permission to effect substituted service.

4.4. This Court however is not inclined to show any further indulgence considering the fact that the accident has taken place in June 2001 and the Claims Tribunal ordered paltry compensation in March 2002 and even after eight years, the Respondents are unable to be located and also the fact that under Section 173 (2) of the Act, Parliament itself has denied right of Appeal. When the various Courts in India have deprived of the fact that Insurance Companies taking recourse to such ingenious methods of filing Revisions when Appeals are denied by law, the very filing of Revision itself is an abuse of process of law.

5. Penny Wise Pound Foolish:

5.1. Even otherwise, the fiscal part of such attempt to make recovery makes one wonder the real motive of such Insurers coming up with the Revision Petitions.

5.2. The following will show that such attempt is not only not made out of any bona fide attempt to made recoveries but to litigate at the cost of public exchequer. It will be interesting to note that for a recovery of Rs.6,000/- the amounts that may be approximately spent by the Insurer is as follows:

Value of Revision :Rs.6,000/-

Court Fee (paid) :Rs.100/-

Expenses in filing (apprx) :Rs.500/-

Counsel Fee :Rs.5,500/- (normal fee paid to High Court Panel Counsel appearing for Insurance Companies)

6. Making Mockery of National Litigation Policy:

6.1. While releasing the National Litigation Policy, the Law Minister of India had warned the Government Departments and agencies to be more responsible in filing and pursuing cases. The following news item published in The Hindu Daily Newspaper dated 24.06.2010 may be usefully extracted below:

Recognising that they contribute the maximum to Court cases, the new National Litigation Policy enjoins on these organisations to think twice before resorting to any litigation.

The policy statement makes it clear that litigation will not be resorted to for the sake of litigating and that false pleas and technical points will not be taken.

Correct facts and all relevant documents should be placed before Court. Nothing should be suppressed or an attempt made to mislead any Court or Tribunal.

The Government must cease to be a compulsive litigant. The philosophy that matters should be left to the Courts for ultimate decision has to be discarded and the easy approach, let the Court decide must be eschewed and condemned.

6.2. Today in the field of insurance, when private operators are also in the field, a Public Sector Insurer must think twice before venturing into a litigation and must consciously make a cost-benefit analysis. They should not end up being penny-wise pound-foolish.

Hence, this Court has no hesitation to dismiss all the Civil Revision Petitions even at the SR stage. Accordingly, all the CRPs will stand dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions also will stand dismissed.

7. Epilogue:

7.1. It will not be out of place to recapitulate observation made by the Supreme Court in Newabganj Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. v. Union of India and others, 1976 (1) SCC 120 [LQ/SC/1975/350] .

4. In this justice situation conventional procedures of each small Claimant being left to litigate for his little sum from the miller or wholesaler is to write off the remedy and allow the illgotten wealth to be in the coffers of the wrongdoer (who got the charter to charge high from a Court order). Nor is the seemingly sweet suggestion, that a representative action under Order1, Rule 8, CPC, be instituted on behalf of the class of consumers, feasible. Who is to start Against whom How is he to meet the huge litigative costs and how long (O Lord, Now long!) is he to wait with long-drawn-out trial procedures, Appeal, Second Appeal, Special Appeal and Supreme Court Appeal For, on title other side is the miller with the millions to be coughed up.

5. The handing of small claims is probably the most deplorable feature of the administration of Civil justice and yet small claims are in many respects more significant than large ones, involving large numbers and inter-class disputes. If the confidence of the community in the justice system, especially consumer protection, is to be created, radical reform of the processual law is needed now and here.

7.2 Very recently, the Supreme Court in Urban Improvement Trust, Bikaner v. Mohan Lal, 2010 (1) SCC 512 [LQ/SC/2009/1969] once again struck a note of warning to all the Government litigations filed vexatiously. The following passages found in paragraphs 5, 6, 10 and 11 may be usefully extracted below:

5. It is a matter of concern that such frivolous and unjust litigations by Governments and Statutory Authorities are on the increase. Statutory Authorities exist to discharge statutory functions in public interest. They should be responsible litigants. They cannot raise frivolous and unjust objections, nor act in a callous and high-handed manner. They can not behave like some private litigants with profiteering motives. Nor can they resort to unjust enrichment. They are expected to show remorse or regret when their officers act negligently or in an overbearing manner. When glaring wrong acts by their officers are brought to their notice, for which there is no explanation or excuse, the least that is expected is restitution/restoration to the extent possible with appropriate compensation. Their harsh attitude in regard to genuine grievances of the public and their indulgence in unwarranted litigation requires to be corrected.

6. This Court has repeatedly expressed the view that Governments and Statutory Authorities should be model or ideal litigants and should not put forth false, frivolous, vexatious, technical (but unjust) contentions to obstruct the path of justice. We may refer to some of the decisions in this behalf.

10. Unwarranted litigation by Government and Statutory Authorities basically stems from the two general baseless assumptions by their officers. They are:

(i) All claims against the Government/Statutory Authorities should be viewed as illegal and should be resisted and fought up to the highest Court of the land.

(ii) If taking a decision on an issue could be avoided, then it is prudent not to decide the issue and let the aggrieved party approach the Court and secure a decision.

The reluctance to take decisions, or tendency to challenge all orders against them, is not the policy of Governments or Statutory Authorities, but is attributable to some officers who are responsible for taking decisions and/or officers in charge of litigation. Their reluctance arises from an instinctive tendency to protect themselves against any future accusations of wrong decision-making, or worse, of improper motives for any decision-making. Unless their insecurity and fear is addressed, officers will continue to pass on the responsibility of decision-making to Courts and Tribunals.

11. The Central Government is now attempting to deal with this issue by formulating realistic and practical norms for defending cases filed against the Government and for filing Appeals and Revisions against adverse decisions, thereby eliminating unnecessary litigation. But it is not sufficient if the Central Government alone undertakes such an exercise. The State Governments and the Statutory Authorities, who have more litigations than the Central Government, should also make genuine efforts to eliminate unnecessary litigations. Vexatious and unnecessary litigations have been dogging the wheels of justice for too long, making it difficult for Court and Tribunals to provide easy and speedy access to justice to bona fide and needy litigants.