ORDER
D.R. Deshmukh, J.
1. Heard on admission.
2. This Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against an award dated 30-6-2006 passed by the learned 1st Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Surajpur in Claims Case No. 71 of 2005 whereby compensation of Rs. 1,43,000/- along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of application was awarded.
3. Learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that since the appellant had already deposited a sum of Rs. 50,000/- on the principle of no fault liability under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act of 1988’), the appellant is absolved from the liability to deposit a further sum of Rs. 25,000/-, as required under the provision to Section 173(1) of the Act of 1988. This argument is founded on two contentions. Firstly, that under Section 141(3) of the Act of 1988, any amount deposited towards no fault liability under Section 140 of the Act of 1988 merges with the award and the liability to pay compensation is restricted only towards remainder. Lastly, the learned Counsel for the appellant placed reliance on a judgment rendered by the Division Bench of the High Court of M.P. in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Gopal Singh and Ors. 1999 (2) MPLJ 541, wherein it was held that the High Court may, in its discretion while entertaining the appeal, direct that the interim compensation already paid in the Tribunal in a given case would be the requisite deposit.
4. Section 173(1) of the Act 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.
5. In Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Gopal Singh and Ors. 1999 (2) MPLJ 541, it has been observed that the aim and object of requiring a deposit of Rs. 25,000/- or 50% amount of the award, whichever is less, as a pre-condition of appeal, appears to be with a twin purpose. The Legislature by introducing first proviso under Section 173 clearly intends that during pendency of appeal against the award the victim of the accident must be provided with certain percentage of amount of compensation as minimum required relief and he should not be allowed to wait indefinitely until decision of the appeal. The other purpose is that the appellants should not be allowed to prefer an appeal on frivolous grounds just to delay the payment of compensation under the award. Only such appeals which are bonafide and backed by payment of reasonable amount under the award should be allowed to be entertained.
6. The proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 173 of the Act of 1988 has to be reasonably construed by giving full effect and meaning to all the words employed in its language. The words “with it” and “in the manner directed by the High Court” used in Section 173(1) of the Act of 1988 being clear and unambiguous have to be given full effect and would require that before an appeal is entertained by the High Court an amount of Rs. 25,000/- or 50% of the amount awarded, whichever is less, shall be deposited by the person who is required to pay amount in term of the award in the manner directed by the High Court. If the proviso is read omitting the words “with it” and “in the manner directed by the High Court”, the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant could have been acceptable that a deposit under Section 140 of the Act of 1988 having merged with the award, would be sufficient compliance of the proviso to Section 173(1) of the Act of 1988. The argument advanced by the learned Counsel for the appellant holds good only to the extent that while construing whether the appellant is required to deposit Rs. 25,000/- or 50% of the amount so awarded, whichever is less, the amount already deposited by the insurer shall be adjusted towards the amount so awarded. It was argued by the learned Counsel for the appellant that if in a given case compensation of Rs. 60,000/- has been awarded and the insurer had already deposited a sum of Rs. 50,000/- under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, if the appellant-Insurer would be required to deposit a sum of Rs. 25,000/- being less than half of the compensation awarded, it would lead to an anomalous situation. This argument is unacceptable. The insurer would not be required to deposit Rs. 25,000/- under Section 173 of the Act of 1988 even in such a case because in that case while construing the liability under the proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 173 of the Act of 1988, the Court will first have to adjust the amount already paid by the insurer under Section 140 of the Act of 1988 from the amount so awarded. In this way, liability to pay compensation would be remaining only for Rs. 10,000/- and therefore, the insurer would only be required to deposit a sum of Rs. 5,000/- being 50% of the amount awarded (Rs. 60,000/- – Rs. 50,000/- = Rs. 10,000 รท 2).
7. Reading the proviso with the words “with it” and “in the manner directed by the High Court”, I am of the considered opinion that an amount of Rs. 25,000/- or 50% of the amount awarded after taking into consideration the amount already deposited under Section 140 of the Act of 1988, whichever is less, is to be deposited in the manner directed by the High Court before an appeal could be entertained. If in a given case like the one quoted above the amount so required to be deposited along with appeal under Section 173 of the Act of 1988 is much less than the amount already deposited by the insurer before the MACT, the Court may, as held in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., (supra), in its discretion, consider the amount so deposited by the insurer before the learned MACT to be the requisite deposit under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, but it cannot be laid down that in every case where a sum of Rs. 25,000/- or more has already been deposited by the insurer under Section 140 of the Act of 1988 the insurer shall be absolved from the liability to deposit an additional sum of Rs. 25,000/- or 50% amount of the award after adjusting the amount already deposited, whichever is less.
8. In this view of matter, the appellant is directed to deposit an additional sum of Rs. 25,000/- before the learned MACT within 10 days and to furnish proof thereof.