Dhillon Roadways vs Ram Dev And Others on 29 October, 2009

FAO No.5191 of 2009(O&M)                                   1


IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

                                      FAO No.5191 of 2009(O&M)
                                      Date of decision: 29.10.2009


Dhillon Roadways                                   ......Appellant(s)

                                 Versus

Ram Dev and others                                 ......Respondent(s)

CORAM:- HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG

* * *

Present: Mr. G.L. Bajaj, Advocate for the appellant.

Rakesh Kumar Garg, J.(Oral)

This appeal has been filed by the owner of the offending

vehicle challenging the impugned award whereby claimant-respondent

No.1 has been awarded compensation on account of death of Ms. Kavita

@ Soni in a motor vehicular accident caused due to rash and negligent

driving of the offending vehicle by respondent No.4.

Along with this appeal, an application has been filed seeking

exemption from deposit of Rs.25,000/- which is a pre-requisite for

maintaining an appeal on the ground that award has already been satisfied

in favour of the claimant.

It is well settled that right of appeal is a statutory right and the

same can be availed in accordance with the provisions of law.

Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter

referred to as “the Act”) which regulates the filing of appeal challenging

the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal reads as follows:

“Appeals:- (1) Subject to the provisions of sub-sec.(2),

any person aggrieve by an award of a Claims Tribunal

may, within ninety days from the date of the award,
FAO No.5191 of 2009(O&M) 2

prefer an appeal to the High Court:

Provided that no appeal by the person who is required

to pay any amount in terms of such award shall be

entertained by the High Court unless he has deposited

with it twenty-five thousand rupees or fifty per cent of the

amount so awarded, whichever is less, in the manner

directed by the High Court.

Provided further that the High Court may entertain the

appeal after the expiry of the said period of ninety days,

if it is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by

sufficient cause from preferring the appeal in time.

(2) No appeal shall lie against any award of a Claims

Tribunal, if the amount in dispute in the appeal is less

than ten thousand rupees.”

Thus, deposit of an amount of Rs.25,000/- or 50% of the

amount so awarded, whichever is less, is a pre-requisite for filing of the

appeal. There is no provision under the Act under which exemption from

making the deposit under First Proviso to Section 173(1) of the Act can be

granted. A Division Bench of this Court in the case of Harbans Lal and

another v. Nazar Singh and others 2002 ACJ 1827 has held as under:-

“Moreover, the appellants have not deposited the

statutory amount as required under Section 173(1) of the

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the

Act’). They have moved an application for exempting

them from depositing the amount. No provision of the

Act has been shown to us by which the court could grant

such an exemption. This appeal also deserves to be
FAO No.5191 of 2009(O&M) 3

dismissed on this count. It may be noted that in the

application, there is no request for postponing the date

of the depositing of the amount.”

In the case of Sohan Singh v. Kushla Devi and others AIR

1996 Punjab and Haryana, 256, this Court has held as under:

“On a plan reading of the proviso to Section 173(1), any

person who is required to pay any amount under an

award passed by the Claims Tribunal, prefers an appeal,

his appeal can be entertained by the High Court only if

he makes deposit of a specific amount as required by

the said proviso and he cannot claim exemption from

making the deposit on the ground that a co-respondent

before the Tribunal has filed an appeal and has made

the requisite deposit. It is a different thing that the High

Court will not order the disbursement of the entire

amount deposited by different parties under the proviso

to section 173(1)”.

In view of the aforesaid Division Bench judgments’ of this

Court, the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant that in this

case the claim of the claimant-respondents has been satisfied, and

therefore, there is no need to deposit the amount of Rs.25,000/- as

envisaged under the Act, is not sustainable. Thus, the application for

granting exemption from deposit of the amount as aforesaid is rejected.

No prayer has been made by the counsel for the appellant to

permit him to deposit the aforesaid amount.

Since it is pre-requisite to deposit the amount under Section

173 of the Act and no deposit has been made by the appellant in this
FAO No.5191 of 2009(O&M) 4

appeal as aforesaid, there is no properly constituted appeal before me and

therefore, this appeal is dismissed as not maintainable.

October 29, 2009                          (RAKESH KUMAR GARG)
ps                                               JUDGE