The main legal point established in the judgment is that the appeal against an order under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act is not maintainable if the amount in dispute is below the threshold limit of One lakh rupees as per Section 173(2).

JUDGMENT :

1. This is an appeal challenging the order dated 25th March 2022, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Tribunal), Kelapur, Yavatmal, in an application under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (M.V. Act) in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.51 of 2017.

2. The Appellant is the Claimant, who has filed the Motor Accident Claim Petition No.51 of 2017 before the M.A.C.T. Kelapur under Section 166 of the M.V. Act, 1988 for grant of compensation of Rs.5 lakhs for the injuries and permanent disablement caused to him due to the accident between the tractor trolly in which he was travelling and a truck which came and hit the tractor trolly from behind. It is claimed by the Appellant that he sustained grievous injuries over his body and has become permanently disabled. That he has lost his working and earning capacity, and therefore, the claim petition. In the claim petition, the Appellant had made an application under Section 140 of the M.V. Act seeking compensation of Rs.25,000/- under the principle of “No Fault Liability.” Vide its order dated 25th March 2022 impugned in this appeal, the tribunal on the basis of prima-facie findings that at the time of the accident, the offending truck was driven by a cleaner, who was not possessing a valid license to drive the truck, held that the truck owner but not the Insurance Company was liable to pay Rs.25,000/- to the Appellant.

3. Being aggrieved by the exoneration of the Insurance Company, the Appellant has filed this appeal on the grounds mentioned therein.

4. When the matter was heard on the 11th October 2022, the following order came to be passed :

“This is an appeal impugning the order dated 25-03-2022 passed in an application under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act seeking compensation of Rs.25,000/- under the No Fault Liability. Mr. Awchat, learned Counsel would submit that the order should have directed the payment of No Fault Liability amount jointly and severally upon the owner as well as on the Insurance Company, but it has gone ahead on an prima facie finding in the matter. The issues have not been framed and the Tribunal has saddled the liability only on the owner of the offending truck. He would submit that such a finding would come in his way at the time of final decision in the claim pending before the Tribunal. The learned Counsel for the offending vehicle submits that he has already filed reply and the same may be perused.

2. A perusal of Section 173(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act indicates that there is a minimum amount in respect of which an Appeal can be filed against the award of the Claims Tribunal and that is Rs.1 Lakh. The amount involved in this Appeal is Rs.25,000/- and as such there would be an issue of maintainability of the Appeal.

3. Let the learned Counsel for the parties address the Court on this issue on the next occasion.

4. Mr. Awchat, learned counsel for the appellant to inform Mr. Lalit Limaye, Advocate for respondent no.3.

5. List the matter on 18-10-2022.”

5. On the 18th October 2022, when the matter was called out, Mr. Awchat, learned counsel for the Appellant, would submit that the appeal is maintainable in as much as the orders passed by the Tribunal under Section 140 of the M.V. Act are appellable under Section 173 of the Act. Learned counsel relies upon the following three decisions in support of his contention :

(i) United India Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Serjerao and Others, 2008 (7) SCC 425

(ii) Yallwwa and Others vs. National Insurance Company Ltd. & Another, 2007 AIR (SC) 2582

(iii) Shriram General Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Smt. Umadabi W/o. Mohd. Satar and Others, in First Appeal No.658 of 2011, dated 19.06.2012.

Learned counsel would submit that, in view of the aforesaid decisions, even if the amount involved in the appeal is less than One lakh rupees, the same would be maintainable.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and given my thoughtful consideration to this matter.

7. There is and there cannot be any doubt th