GHULAM MOHAMMED, J.

( 1 ) THERE are altogether nine appeals preferred by the insurance company against the common award made by the Tribunal dated 24. 7. 95 which pertains to single accident occurred on 25. 3. 1991 at about 3. 00 p. m. at Panasa-padu and Chavitidibbalu. There are two cases which pertain to death whereas the other seven relate to injuries sustained by the persons. The Tribunal clubbed 8 O. Ps. in view of the fact that the O. Ps. are arising out of a single accident and they were disposed of by the impugned order. Since all the O. Ps. arise out of the same accident, the appeals are disposed of by a common order.

( 2 ) THE only ground raised by the insurance company is with regard to its liability jointly and severally to pay the compensation. The brief facts of the case are as follows: in respect of O. P. No. 346 of 1991, the wife of the deceased filed a claim petition under section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act claiming a compensation of Rs. 1,00,000. The Tribunal on appreciation of both oral and documentary evidence and on consideration of evidence of PW 2 who is an eyewitness to the accident, and after considering the issues in respect of negligence on the part of the driver of tractor-cum-trailer bearing No. ATP 6663 and 6664 and also after taking into account the monthly earnings of the deceased, followed the appropriate multiplier and granted a compensation of Rs. 66,500.

( 3 ) IN O. P. No. 289 of 1991 the claimant is mother of the deceased who filed a claim petition under section 166 of Motor vehicles Act claiming a compensation of rs. 1,00,000 towards death of her daughter aged about 13 years and the trial court after considering the evidence of eyewitness PW 2 held that there was negligence on the part of the driver of the tractor-cum-trailer and had assessed the compensation reasonably after taking into account the earnings of the deceased and also the age by adopting the multiplier method and awarded a total compensation of Rs. 47,000 together with 12 per cent interest from the date of petition till realisation. This O. P. was disposed of separately by the Tribunal,

( 4 ) THE remaining seven O. Ps. pertain to injury cases and were disposed of by a common order.

( 5 ) IN O. P. No. 529 of 1991 against which C. M. A. No. 191 of 1996 is filed, the tribunal has assessed the compensation with regard to the injuries sustained by the claimant and awarded a sum of Rs. 6,000. In O. P. No. 560 of 1991 against which c. M. A. No. 187 of 1996 arises, the Tribunal on appreciation of evidence awarded a compensation of Rs. 6,000 towards injuries sustained by the claimant. In O. P, No. 530 of 1991 against which C. M. A. No. 190 of 1996 arises, the Tribunal on appreciation of evidence awarded a sum of Rs. 5,000 as compensation towards injuries sustained by the claimant. In O. P. No. 526 of 1991 against which C. M. A. No. 189 of 1996 arises, the Tribunal on appreciation of evidence awarded a sum of Rs. 5,000 towards compensation for injuries caused.

( 6 ) LEARNED counsel for respondents Mr. Ramgopal contended that since the value of appeals is less than Rs. 10,000 so these appeals are barred under section 173 (2) of Motor Vehicles Act. I find some force in the contention advanced by the learned counsel for respondents. Section 173 (2) of Motor Vehicles Act reads as follows:"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. "

( 7 ) ACCORDINGLY, I dismiss the said four appeals, i. e. , C. M. A. Nos. 187, 189, 190 and 191 of 1996.

( 8 ) IN respect of O. P. No. 531 of 1991 against which C. M. A. No. 192 of 1996 arises, the Tribunal on appreciation of both oral and documentary evidence awarded a sum of Rs. 10,000 towards injuries sustained by the claimant.

( 9 ) IN respect of O. P. No. 499 of 1991 against which C. M. A. No. 188 of 1996 arises, the Claims Tribunal after taking into account Exh. A-7, wound certificate, which clearly show that the claim

Click Here to Read the rest of this document