Basheer, J.

1. When this appeal came up for consideration on an earlier occasion, it was noticed that the appellant had not made the statutory deposit as mandated under Section 173 (1) of the Motor Vehicles Act. On a request made by the learned counsel, the case was adjourned, so as to enable the appellant to make the deposit. Thereafter, two more adjournments were granted to the appellant as requested.

2. Today, when the case is taken up for consideration, learned counsel submits that the appellant is not in a position to make the deposit. However, he invites our attention to a decision rendered by a Division Bench of this Court in Abdul Rahiman v. Rajan (2004 (2) KLT 1113), which, according to the learned counsel, governs the field. It is pointed out by the learned counsel that in this decision, it has been held that the stipulation contained in the first proviso to Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act will not come into play if the Insurance Company is directed to satisfy the award initially, and recover the amount from the owner and driver later. Learned counsel submits that in the case on hand, an identical situation has arisen and therefore, the appellant need not make the pre deposit.

3. Appellant is the driver of the lorry which was involved in the accident. He has come up in appeal challenging the finding entered by the Tribunal that the licence possessed by him was not valid at the time of the accident. According to the appellant, he had made an application for renewal of the licence and therefore, this aspect ought to have been kept in view by the Tribunal while deciding the question of validity of the licence.

4. We have carefully perused the decision in Abdul Rahiman's case (supra). In our view, the proviso to Section 173 (1) of the Motor Vehicles Act gives no room for any ambiguity or doubt.

"Section 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 percent of the amount so awarded, whichever is less, in the manner directed by the High Court."

(emphasis supplied)

First proviso to sub-section (1) makes it unambiguously clear that no appeal can be preferred by a person who is required to pay any amount in terms of the award unless he has deposited with the appellate court twenty five thousand rupees or 50% of the amount so awarded, whichever is less, in the manner directed by the High Court.

5. According to the appellant, since the amount awarded by the Tribunal in favour of the claimant has already been deposited by the Insurance Company (of course with liberty to the Company to recover it from the owner and driver of the offending vehicle), he is well within his right to institute this appeal without making the pre deposit.

6. But, it has to be remembered that the appellant does not have a case that no liability has been fastened on him by the award that is impugned in this appeal. The appellant is obviously aggrieved by the award passed by the Tribunal, as otherwise, he would not have come up in appeal. It is true that the Tribunal has directed the Insurance Company to deposit the award amount before the Tribunal so as to ensure that the claimant gets the fruits of the decree passed in his favour without any delay or hassle. Undoubtedly, it cannot be said that the appellant has been exonerated from the liability to pay the compensation. So long as the ultimate liability hangs over the head of the appellant, he is bound to satisfy the award, though there is no imminent threat of execution against him. Any how, by no stretch of imagination, it can be said that the appellant "is not required to pay any amount in terms of the award" unless and