PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
G.S.Singhvi and S.S.Sudhalkar JJ.
Sohan Singh
Versus
Kushla Devi
First Appeal First Order No. 2289 of 1995,
Decided On : APRIL 12, 1996
MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988 - SECTION 173(1) - DEPOSIT OF AMOUNT AS CONDITION PRECEDENT TO APPEAL - INTERPRETATION - APPEAL BY PERSON REQUIRED TO PAY AMOUNT UNDER AWARD - DEPOSIT BY CO-RESPONDENT NOT SUFFICIENT - MAIN LEGAL POINT: Deposit of amount as a condition precedent to appeal under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is mandatory for any person required to pay any amount under the award, and cannot be exempted on the ground that a co-respondent has already made the deposit.
Fact of the Case:
Appellant, a driver involved in a motor accident, filed an appeal against an award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. The Registry raised an objection to the entertainability of the appeal due to the appellant's failure to deposit Rs. 25,000/- as required by the proviso to Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the proviso to Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which requires a person required to pay any amount under an award to deposit a specific amount as a condition precedent to the entertainability of an appeal, is mandatory and cannot be exempted on the ground that a co-respondent before the Tribunal has filed an appeal and made the requisite deposit.
Issues: Whether an appeal filed by a party against an award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal can be entertained by a Court without compliance of the proviso to S. 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court interpreted the proviso to Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, strictly and held that the requirement of deposit of a specific amount as a condition precedent to the entertainability of the appeal applies to any person required to pay any amount in terms of the award, and there is no exemption for co-respondents who have already made the deposit.
Final Decision: The Court upheld the office objection and directed the appellant to deposit the amount specified in the proviso to Section 173(1) of the Act within six weeks, failing which the appeal would be dismissed.
G.S.SINGHVI, J.
1. An important issue which has arisen for determination by this Court in view of the office objection raised to the entertainability of the appeal is whether an appeal filed by a party against an award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal can be entertained by a Court without compliance of the proviso to S. 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).
2. Feeling aggrieved by the award dated 1-4-1995 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chandigarh, appellant-Sohan Singh, driver of bus No. HP-20-0601 filed this appeal on 3-7-1995. Registry of this Court raised an objection to the entertainability of the appeal on the ground that the appellant has not deposited Rs. 25,000/- as required by the proviso to S.173(1) of the Act. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted a reply to the said objection by stating that an amount of Rs. 25,000/- has been deposited vide bank draft No. 01/c-135040 dated 7-6-1995 in a connected appeal by the Himachal Pradesh Road Transport Corporation against the same award and, therefore, it was not necessary for the appellant to deposit Rs. 25,000 / -.
3. Shri H. S. Gill, learned senior Advocate, appearing for the appellant, argued that S.173(1) of the Act empowers any person aggrieved by an award of the Claims Tribunal to prefer an appeal to the High Court and once an appeal has been preferred by one of the aggrieved persons by depositing Rs. 25,000 /- or fifty per cent of the amount awarded by the Tribunal, other persons filing appeal against the same award are not required to make deposit in terms of proviso to Sec.173(1). Shri Gill argued that if the proviso to Sec. 173(1) is literally interpreted the same may lead to anomalous result inasmuch as in a given case the amount required to be deposited in terms of the proviso may exceed the total amount awarded by the Tribunal. On the other hand, Shri C. B. Goel and Shri Ashit Malik, Advocates, argued that the requirement of the deposit of a specific amount as a condition precedent to the entertainability of the appeal has to be fulfilled by any person preferring an appeal against the award if he is required to pay any amount in terms of such award and there is no reason for the Court to interpret the proviso to Sec. 173(1) in such a manner which defeats the very purpose of incorporating the requirement of the deposit of the amount.Section 173 of the Act reads as under:-
"173. Appeals :-
(1) Subject to the provisions of sub-sec. (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 per cent 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."
.
4 A careful reading of the above quoted provision shows that sub-sec.(1) of S. 173 gives a right of appeal to any person aggrieved by an award of the Claims Tribunal. The period of limitation for filing such appeal is 90 days from the date of award. Second proviso to S.173(1) empowers the High Court to entertain the appeal after the expiry of the period of 90 days in case the High Court is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from preferring an appeal in time. First proviso to S. 173(1) refers to an appeal by a person who is required to pay any amount in terms of the award. It lays down that no appeal by a person who is required to pay any amount in
AI
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.