ORDER
R.S. Garg, J.
1. The Claims Tribunal has made an award of Rs. 3,500/- with interest and cost in favour of the claimant/respondent No. 1.
2. The appellant Insurance Company aggrieved by the said award has filed this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. When this Court confronted learned counsel appearing for the appellant with Section 173 of the Act in relation to the maintainability of the appeal, learned counsel submits that a bare perusal and intelligible understanding of sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 173 would make it clear that if there are more than one award in relation to the same accident then bar under Section 173(2) shall not apply.
3. Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 reads as under —
“173, Appeals.– (1) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (2), any person aggrieved by an award of a Claims Tribunal may, within ninety days from the date of the award, 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.”
4. Sub-section (2) of Section 173 provides 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/-. According to Shri Jayaswal the words ‘any award’ cannot be read as ‘the award’ and therefore if there are more than one award arising out of the same accident then the total amount has to be taken into consideration while appreciating the applicability of sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 173 of the Act.
5. The arguments raised by the learned counsel for the appellant loses sight of the other words which have been employed in sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 173 of the Act. Sub-section (2) says that ‘no appeal shall lie if the amount in dispute in the appeal is less than ten thousand’. The words ‘in the appeal’ would not relate to more than one appeal. The words ‘in the appeal’ would be in relation to the said particular award and the appeal which has been submitted before the High Court. The law does nowhere say that if more than one claim arises in relation to the same accident than aggregate of the award amount shall decide the jurisdiction of the High Court.
6. In a given case number of claim petitions arising out of the same accident for consideration and the Court taking into consideration the entitlement of each of the claimant would award less or more in favour of such claimant. In a case where the award amount is more than one lac the matter would be heard by Division Bench but if the award amount is less than one lac then the matter is to be heard by Single Bench in accordance with the High Court Rules. The total amount of different awards does not decide the jurisdiction of Single Bench or Division Bench. The maintainability of the appeal would not depend upon the amount of all the awards or the extent of the grant of different claims but the maintainability of the appeal will have to be decided on the strength of the amount in dispute in the appeal.
7. When sub-section (2) of Section 173 of the Act clearly says that no appeal shall lie if the amount in dispute in the appeal is less than ten thousand rupees then there is no reason to hold that the amount awarded in different claim petitions would be clubbed together for deciding the question of maintainability of the appeal. As the amount involved in this appeal is less than ten thousand, the appeal is not maintainable. It is accordingly dismissed.
8. Misc. Appeal dismissed.
