IMPORTANT POINTS :
• The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunals constituted under the Act as also this court exercising appellate jurisdiction have a duty to award just and fair compensation having regard to the well settled principles regarding assessment of damages, if necessary by ignoring the claim made in the application for compensation-
• The operation of sub-s.(2) of S.173 of the Act can have no application to appeals filed by claimants seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal-
• The restriction contained in sub-s.(2) of S.173 of the Act can have application only where the award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal is under challenge by the person held liable by the Tribunal to pay the amount awarded as compensation.
• Section 110 D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, which was repealed by the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 contained a provision similar to sub-s.(2) of S.173 of the Act.

P.N. Ravindran, J.

This unnumbered appeal arises from the award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thodupuzha on 20.1.2015 in O.P.(M.V.) No.56 of 2009. The appellant is the claimant therein. He had in O.P.(M.V.) No.56 of 2009 which was instituted on 6.2.2009, prayed for award of the sum of Rs.7,00,000/- as compensation under various heads for the injuries sustained by him in a motor accident that took place on 7.1.2009. By award passed on 20.1.2015, the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal awarded the sum of Rs.6,90,245/- as compensation and directed the third respondent insurer to deposit the said amount together with interest at 7% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realisation. The claimant was also held entitled to proportionate costs. The claimant has, dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, filed this appeal.

2. Registry has declined to number the appeal on the ground that in view of sub-s.(2) of S.173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act” for short), the appeal is not maintainable. Such an objection has been raised on the ground that as against the appellant’s claim for award of the sum of, Rs.7,00,000/- as compensation, the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal has awarded the sum of Rs.6,90,245/- and therefore, as the amount in dispute in the appeal is less than Rs.10,000/-, an appeal would not lie. Registry has also relied on the unreported decision of a learned single Judge of this court in M.A.C.A.No.1892 of 2009.

3. When this unnumbered appeal first came up for consideration before us on 23.7.2015, we appointed Sri.Mathews Jacob, learned Senior Advocate of this court as amicus curiae for the purpose of assisting us in considering the question whether sub-s.(2) of S.173 of the Act would govern appeals filed by the claimants who are dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. We had in the said order, after referring to the decision of a Division Bench of this court in Oriental Fire and General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Narayani Amma (1984 KLT 410) and the decision of a learned single Judge of this court in Ajesh Alex v. John & Ors. (2006 (4) KLT 828) came to the prima facie conclusion that sub-s.(2) of S.173 of the Act can have no application to appeals filed by claimants who are dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal.

4. We heard Sri.S.Sachithananda Pai, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Sri.Mathews Jacob, learned amicus curiae. Sri.Mathews Jacob, learned Senior Advocate submitted that the words “against any award” occurring in sub-s.(2) of S.173 of the Act indicates that the prohibition contained therein is against appeals by the owner, driver and insurer of the motor vehicle involved in the accident and not to an appeal filed by a claimant who is dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. The learned Senior Advocate also submitted that the provisions of the Act regarding establishment of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunals and conferment of jurisdiction on such Tribunals to decide claims for compensation arising out of motor accidents being a beneficial piece of social welfare legislation, the Parliament thought it fit that in cases where the amount awarded as compensation or the amount disputed is less than Rs.10,000/-, there should be a finality attached to the awards passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunals. The learned Senior Counsel submitted that the Tribunals constituted under the Act have a duty, irrespective of the claim made in the application, to award just, fair and reasonable compensation and therefore, in an appeal filed by a claimant who is dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal and seeking enhancement of compensation, no reference can be made to the amount claimed in the claim petition or the amount awarded by the Tribunal for the purpose of deciding whether the