A significant clarification has emerged on the limits of appellate jurisdiction in motor accident claims when a prior remand order explicitly reserves key issues for the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal. The Punjab and Haryana High Court has now held that an appellate court cannot override or decide issues specifically remanded for determination by the Tribunal, even if parties fail to bring the remand order to its attention.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The dispute arose from a motor accident claim where the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Panipat, passed an ex parte award in 2006 holding the applicant, Gurvinder Singh, liable and fastening recovery rights on the insurance company. The Tribunal’s award did not determine the inter se liability among the insurer, driver, and vehicle owner.
Procedural History
- 2006: Tribunal awarded compensation ex parte against Gurvinder Singh and imposed recovery liability on the insurance company.
- 2008: Gurvinder Singh filed CR-6168/2008 and FAO-4976/2008 challenging the ex parte award and recovery rights.
- 2017: The Punjab and Haryana High Court set aside the liability findings and remanded the matter to the Tribunal with a specific direction to determine only the inter se liability among the insurer, driver, and owner. The quantum of compensation was expressly left undisturbed.
- 2024: Proceedings on inter se liability were actively pending before the Tribunal in MACM-25-2024.
- 2025: Without knowledge of the remand order, the High Court, in FAO-4665/2006, affirmed the insurance company’s recovery rights against Gurvinder Singh, unaware that the issue was sub judice before the Tribunal.
Relief Sought
The applicant sought review of the High Court’s 2025 order, requesting that the recovery rights be set aside and the issue of liability be left to be decided by the Tribunal as per the 2017 remand order.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether an appellate court may decide inter se liability between insurer, driver, and owner when a prior remand order has expressly reserved that issue for determination by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal.
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant/Petitioner
The applicant argued that the 2017 remand order was binding and limited the scope of appellate adjudication. He relied on the principle that appellate courts must respect the scope of remand orders and cannot usurp the Tribunal’s exclusive jurisdiction over issues specifically referred back. He cited State of Haryana v. Bhagwan Das to emphasize that remand orders are not mere procedural directions but substantive limitations on appellate power.
For the Respondent/State
The respondents contended that the High Court was not informed of the pending Tribunal proceedings and thus acted in good faith. They argued that since the claimant and insurer were present before the High Court, the appellate court had the inherent power to decide all aspects of the appeal, including liability, to achieve finality.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the nature and effect of remand orders under Section 151 of the CPC and Order XLI Rule 25. It held that a remand order with specific directions is not a general direction for rehearing but a judicial limitation on the scope of further adjudication. The Court emphasized that the 2017 order was unambiguous: it directed the Tribunal to decide only the inter se liability, while preserving the compensation amount.
"The remand order was not a mere procedural formality but a substantive directive circumscribing the ambit of appellate adjudication. To permit the appellate court to decide the very issue reserved for the Tribunal would render the remand order otiose and undermine the statutory scheme of the Motor Vehicles Act."
The Court rejected the argument that lack of disclosure by counsel justified overruling the remand order. It held that the court’s duty to respect judicial orders supersedes procedural lapses by litigants. The failure of counsel to bring the remand order to notice did not empower the Court to exceed its jurisdiction.
The Court further noted that the Tribunal, as a specialized forum under the Motor Vehicles Act, possesses exclusive competence to apportion liability among multiple parties. Appellate courts must not encroach upon this domain unless explicitly authorized.
The Verdict
The applicant succeeded. The High Court modified its 2025 order to set aside the affirmation of recovery rights against Gurvinder Singh. It held that inter se liability must be determined solely by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal as per the 2017 remand order, and all contentions on liability are left open for adjudication there.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Remand Orders Are Binding Constraints
- Practitioners must treat remand orders as jurisdictional boundaries, not suggestions.
- Appellate courts cannot decide issues expressly reserved for lower tribunals, even if parties fail to disclose them.
- Failure to produce a remand order does not validate an ultra vires decision.
Specialized Tribunals Retain Exclusive Authority
- Motor Accidents Claims Tribunals retain exclusive jurisdiction to determine inter se liability under the Motor Vehicles Act.
- Appellate courts must not substitute their own findings on liability where the Tribunal has been directed to do so.
- Lawyers must proactively file remand orders as annexures in appeals to prevent inadvertent overreach.
Procedural Lapses Do Not Override Judicial Directives
- Courts will not condone jurisdictional overreach due to counsel’s oversight.
- The doctrine of res judicata and lis pendens applies to remanded issues - pending Tribunal proceedings bar parallel appellate determination.
- Practitioners must maintain a checklist of prior orders before appearing in appellate forums.
