AKIL KURESHI, J.

1. IN all these appeals, question of maintainability of Letters Patent Appeals arises. Considering the importance of the issue we have heard learned advocates appearing for the parties at considerable length. Since the central question is common, though individual facts may differ in each appeal, all the Letters Patent Appeals are being disposed of by this common judgement.

2. LETTERS Patent Appeals are filed by the Insurance Companies challenging the judgements passed by the Learned Single Judges in First Appeals under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Short question is whether in view of Section 100A of the Code of Civil Procedure ('the Code' for short), such appeals are maintainable?

Individual facts are somewhat different in each appeal. However, for the purpose of this judgement, it would be sufficient to note the facts arising in Letters Patent Appeal No. 2174/2009. 3.1 Said appeal has been filed by Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited challenging the judgement and order dated 3.3.2009 passed by the learned Single Judge in First Appeal No. 746/2009. In the First Appeal the insurance company had challenged an award dated 18.9.2008 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Narmada in Motor Accident Claims Petition No. 757/2006 by which the tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.3,85,000/- to the claimants to be recovered with 9% interest thereon. The claim petition pertained to vehicular accident which took place on 9.10.2004 in which one person died. Wife of the deceased, his minor children and aged parents therefore, filed the claim petition under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 seeking compensation of Rs. 4 lakhs from the owner and the Insurance Company of the vehicle involved in the accident. Claims tribunal awarded compensation of Rs. 3,85,000/-.

3. IN other Letters Patent Appeals also, the Insurance Companies are before the Division Bench challenging the judgements passed by the Learned Single Judges in First Appeals filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

4. QUESTION is whether such appeals are maintainable in light of Section 100A of the Code which provides that notwithstanding anything contained in any Letters Patent for any High Court or in any other instrument having the force of law or in any other law for the time being in force, where any appeal from an original or appellate decree or order is heard and decided by a single Judge of the High Court, no further appeal shall lie from the judgement and decree of such single Judge.

Appearing for the Insurance Company, learned counsel Shri Shalin Mehta submitted that Section 100A of the Code bars Letters Patent Appeals only in cases of First Appeals filed under the Code and not under any other statute. In other words, unless special statute itself expressly prohibits Letters Patent Appeal such appeal would not be barred. He submitted that the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 does not bar Letters Patent Appeal against the judgement of learned Single Judge. Present Letters Patent Appeals are therefore, maintainable. In this regard heavy reliance was placed on the Full Bench decision of this Court in case of Nasik Hing Supplying Company v. Annapurna Gruh Udyog Bhandar reported in 2003(2) GLR 926, wherein the Full Bench while considering the maintainability of the Letters Patent Appeal under the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958 observed that :

'(i) What Section 100-A of the CPC as amended by the Amendment Acts of 1999 and 2002 bars further appeal before the Division Bench of this Court against the decision of a Single Judge of this Court in appeals under Sections 96, 100 and 104 of the CPC as explained in Para 12 of this judgment.

(ii) Where a special law provides for appeal against a decision of a single Judge of this Court to a Division Bench of this Court, the provisions of such special law will prevail because Sec. 100-A of the CPC is a part of general law of procedure which does not take away the substantive