JUDGMENT
S.C. Mohapatra, J.
1. This is an application by the petitioner (respondent No. 1 in the appeal) to give direction to the appellant-opposite party to deposit the award amount and to permit the former to withdraw the same.
2. Mr. L. Dash, learned Counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the claimant is badly in need of money and is suffering due to non-payment of the compensation. Accordingly, court should render assistance for payment thereof subject to the result of the appeal.
3. Mr. M. Sinha, learned Counsel for the appellant-opposite party, urged that the petitioner is required under Section 173(1), first proviso, of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, to deposit half of the awarded amount or Rs. 25,000/-, whichever is less. When intention of legislature is not that the court is to give direction for deposit of the amount, there should be no direction. He further submitted that in case court gives a direction for deposit of the amount and payment thereof to the respondent-petitioner, there is no scope for recovery of the same from him. Keeping all these in view, legislature has gone up to the stage of protecting interest of the claimant to the extent of Rs. 25,000/- or half of the awarded amount, whichever is less. Claim petitions are required to be disposed of within six months and the same principle would also be applicable to appeals. Merely because the court would not be able to dispose of an appeal within six months expeditiously, the same would not be a ground to call upon the appellant-opposite party to deposit the entire amount. A party should not suffer due to inability of the court to dispose of the appeal. Mr. Sinha further submitted that benevolence beyond what has been indicated in the statute is not envisaged under the Act.
4. There is force in the contention of Mr. Sinha. When an award is assailed, only the conditions for assailing the award in appeal to make it entertainable are to be satisfied. Court ought not to pass an order which is not envisaged under the law specially when the provisions are exhaustive. Court is not to substitute itself to an executing forum for which provisions have been made in the Act itself. No doubt, the sufferings of the claimants should be given due weight. This can be mitigated by early hearing of the appeal. It is to be remembered that a right of appeal should not be affected by giving directions which would make the appeal onerous for the appellant. Calling upon appellant to deposit more than what the statute requires, makes the appeal onerous. In this view of the matter, although I have full sympathy for the claimant and I am inclined to grant the appropriate relief which he is entitled to get in appeal, I am not inclined to call upon the appellant-opposite party to deposit the amount as prayed for or to permit claimant to withdraw the same if deposited. The amount of Rs. 6,000/-, however, shall be deposited as required under the first proviso to Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, within one month from today failing which the appeal shall stand dismissed without further reference to Bench.
5. In result, the application is dismissed.