T.R. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J.

1. These matters have been referred to the Full Bench in the light of the apparent conflict of the views expressed in the judgments reported in Abdul Rahiman vs. Rajan, 2004 (2) KLT 113 and Sridharan vs. Prasad, 2011 (2) KHC 777. The legal issue that comes up for consideration is in regard to the true interpretation of the first proviso to Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short the Act). In these cases appeals have been filed by the respective appellants who are parties before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal. The contention raised is that when there is a direction in the respective awards, to the insurer to pay the amount awarded as compensation to the claimant and when an appeal is filed by the owner (or driver as the case may be) challenging the direction to recover the amount from him, is it necessary to make a pre-deposit to maintain the appeal in tune with the proviso to Section 173 of the Act?

2. In the decision reported in Abdul Rahiman's case, 2004 (2) KLT 1113, a Division Bench of this Court held, in an appeal filed by the owner, that when the insurance company is directed to deposit the entire amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal and the company is given the right to get reimbursement of the amount from the insured, the first proviso to Section 173 of the Act regarding pre-deposit is not applicable.

3. In the subsequent decision in Sridharan's case, 2011 (2) KHC 777, after relying upon the decision of the Apex Court in Trilochan Singh vs. Kanta Devi and others, (2000) 9 SCC 223, another Division Bench held that so long as the ultimate liability to satisfy the award is there on the person who files the appeal, even if the Tribunal has directed the insurance company to deposit the award amount, the requirement to make pre deposit in the appeal has to be complied with.

4. We heard learned counsel for the appellants Shri Jose Matheikel, Shri P.C. Chacko, Shri P.V. Kunhikrishnan, Shri Johnson Gomez and Shri P.K. Ravi Sankar and learned counsel for the insurance company Shri Ajith Kumar, Shri Jacob Murikkan and Smt. P.K. Santhamma.

5. For easy reference, we extract Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act hereunder:

"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:

Provided further that the High Court may entertain the appeal after the expiry of the said period of ninety days, if it is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from preferring the appeal in time.

(2) 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."

Sub-section (1) confers the remedy of filing an appeal to any person aggrieved by an award and the period of limitation provided is 90 days from the date of award. The proviso insists that an appeal filed by the person who is required to pay any amount in terms of the award shall not be entertained by the High Court unless he has deposited twenty-five thousand rupees or fifty percent of the amount so awarded, whichever is less, in the manner directed by this Court. The second proviso confers power to condone delay.

6. Shri Jose Matheikel submitted that going by the award passed by the Tribunal, the Insurance Company is directed to pay the amount awarded as compensation. Even though there is a provision allowing the insurer to recover the amount from the owner, the only aspect to be considered for applicability of the proviso to Section 173(1) is to see from the award as to which respondent is direct