S.K.Chattopadhyaya, J.

1. In this appeal, the question to be decided is:

As to whether in an appeal filed after the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (Act No. 59 of 1988) (hereinafter referred to as the new Act) came into force against an award arising out of a proceeding under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (Act 4 of 1939) (hereinafter to be referred to as the old Act), the appellant is required to comply with first proviso to Sub-sec. (1) of Sec. 173 of the new Act?

2. In this appeal, applicability of Sec. 173 of the new Act is point in issue. It is not disputed that in this appeal, the claimant (respondent No. 1) had filed his claim petition under the old Act but the appeal has been filed in this court after coming into force of new Act.

3. This appeal has been admitted for final hearing by order dated 28.10.1990 and notices were issued on respondent Nos. 1 and 2 under registered cover. While respondent No. 2 has appeared through Mr. P.C. Roy, Advocate, nobody has appeared on behalf of respondent No. 1 and by order dated 30.1.1992, the service of notice on respondent No. 1 has been accepted as valid.

4. It appears from the record of the case that after the admission of the appeal, a further stamp report has. been made on 21.4.1992 by which the appellant has been required to follow the amended provision of law according to new Act and to file receipt showing deposit of the amount of Rs. 7,500 as contemplated in the first proviso to Sub-sec. (1) of Sec. 173 of the new Act. With the further stamp report, the matter has been placed before me and counsel for the parties have argued at length on this stamp report.

5. Mr. M.Y. Eqbal, the learned counsel appealing on behalf of the appellant, urged that despite repeal of the old Act, the right of the appellant to file appeal under Sec. 110-D of the old Act survives and the appellant cannot be compelled to deposit the amount in terms of the first proviso to Sub-sec. (1) of Sec. 173 of the new Act. Further contention of Mr. Eqbal is that by repeal of the old Act and its substitution by the new one on the same subject, the substantive right of the parties cannot be adversely affected and the right as provided under the old Act is still available.

6. Mr. P.C. Roy, the learned counsel appealing on behalf of respondent No. 2, on the other hand, has submitted that as because the old Act has been repealed, the right of the appellant to file an appeal under Sec. 110-D of the old Act does not survive, the appeal has to be filed under Sec. 173 of the new Act after fulfilling the conditions laid down in first proviso to Sub-sec. (1) of Sec. 173. In support of their respective contentions, learned counsel for the parties referred to various decisions of the High Courts as well as the Supreme Court.

7. It has been contended by Mr. Eqbal that under the old Act the appellants have a right to file an appeal without depositing any amount and this right is preserved by reasons of Sec. 217 (4) of the new Act read with Sec. 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 (hereinafter referred to as the G.C. Act). Reliance has been placed on clauses (c) and (e) of Sec. 6 of the G.C. Act. Relevant portions of the sections read thus:

217. Repeal and savings.- xxx xxx xxx (4) The mention of particular matters in this section shall not be held to prejudice or affect the general application of Sec. 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, with regard to the effect of repeals.

Similarly, Sec. 6 of the Act reads as under:

6. Effect of repeal.-Where this Act or any Central Act or Regulation made after the commencement of this Act repeals any enactment hitherto made or hereafter to be made then, unless a different intention appeals, the repeal shall not- (a) xxx xxx xxx

(b) xxx xxx xxx

(c) affect any right, privilege, obligation or liability acquired, accrued, or inclined under any enactment so repealed; or

(d) xxx xxx xxx

(e) affect any investigation, legal proceeding or remedy in respect of any such right, privilege, obligation, li