Kanoon Ki Dastak
Jammu – A Division Bench of the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh, comprising Justice Sanjeev Kumar and Justice Sanjay Parihar, has held that intra-court appeals under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent are not maintainable against judgments rendered by a Single Judge in appellate jurisdiction, including those arising under the Motor Vehicles Act.
The ruling came in two connected Letters Patent Appeals (LPAs) filed against a judgment delivered by a Single Judge of the High Court in a plea seeking compensation under the Motor Vehicle Act.
These appeals pertained to a compensation award by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kupwara. The Tribunal had awarded Rs. 5,45,600 with 7.5% interest to a claimant who had suffered permanent disability in a road accident. While the claimant sought enhancement, the insurance company sought a reduction.
The Single Judge had clubbed both appeals and passed a common judgment reducing the compensation to Rs. 2,33,200, maintaining the same rate of interest, effectively dismissing the claimant’s appeal and partially allowing that of the insurer.
During the hearing before the Division Bench, a preliminary objection was raised by counsel for respondent No. 1, Aatir Kawoosa, who argued that the appeals were barred under Section 100-A of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC).
Accepting the objection, the Bench observed that Section 100-A overrides any contrary provision in the Letters Patent due to its non-obstante clause.
Quoting the section in full, the Court emphasized that “no further appeal shall lie” when a Single Judge of a High Court hears and decides an appeal from an original or appellate decree or order.
Since the judgment challenged in the LPAs arose from a Single Judge’s decision in appellate jurisdiction over a Tribunal award—which is treated as a decree under the Motor Vehicles Act—the Division Bench ruled that the appeals were not maintainable.
“The impugned order has been passed by the learned Single Judge, deciding the appeals against an original decree/order passed by the Tribunal and, therefore, in view of clear provisions of Section 100-A, further appeal is not maintainable,” the Court held.
Consequently, both appeals were dismissed as not maintainable.