The proviso clause of section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act is clear and mandatory, and the liability of making payment as per an award necessitates the deposit of the specified amount before entertaining an appeal.

( 1 ) HEARD Mr. R. K. Porwal, learned counsel for the appellant and have gone through the record.

( 2 ) ALL the above three appeals have been filed against common judgment and award dated 3. 2. 2005 passed by the Motor Accidents claims Tribunal, Etawah (Special judge D. A. A.) in Motor Accident Claim case No. 342 of 1993, Shiv Ram v. Ram kishan, whereby an award of Rs. 27,000 along with interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum has been made in favour of shiv Ram; Motor Claim Case No. 311 of 1993, Santosh Kumar v. Ram Kishan, wherein an award of Rs. 13,000 along with 6 per cent interest has been made in favour of Santosh Kumar; Motor Claim Case No. 343 of 1993, Kishan Singh v. Ram Kishan, wherein an award of Rs. 15,000 along with 6 per cent interest has been made in favour of Kishan. In all these claim petitions award has been made against the owner of the vehicle ram Kishan who is appellant in this case but a direction has been made that opposite party No. 2, New India Assurance co. Ltd. , Etawah will make payment of the amount of award to the award holders-respondents-claimants and the insurance company may recover it from owner of the vehicle who is appellant in this case. Objection of Stamp Reporter in all the three above appeals is being decided by a common order.

( 3 ) THESE appeals have been preferred under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles act, 1988 which contemplates that any person aggrieved by an award of Claims tribunal may, within 90 days from the date of award, prefer an appeal to the High court. Proviso 1 of section 173 of the Act contemplates that, "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 Rs. 25,000 or 50 per cent of the amount so awarded, whichever is less, in the manner directed by the High court".

( 4 ) THE Stamp Reporter Section of this court has raised objection that the provision of the proviso clause of section 173 of motor Vehicles Act has not been complied with by the appellants in these appeals. Amount awarded is less than Rs. 50,000 therefore half of the amount of the award including interest is to be deposited before the appeal is entertained.

( 5 ) MR. Porwal, the learned counsel for the appellant, submits that the award has been made against the insurance company and not against the appellant who is the owner of the vehicle and, therefore, proviso clause of section 173 of the Act is not applicable in these appeals and, therefore, the appellant is not liable to deposit these amounts and the appeals may be entertained. It may be significant to mention that all these claim petitions were decided by a common judgment dated 3. 2. 2005 because these claim petitions from which these appeals have arisen related to one and the same accident which is said to have taken place on 24. 5. 1993 at 8 a. m. by truck No. UAN 8527 and the truck was owned by the appellant which was carrying goats. After appreciating the evidence the Motor accidents Claims Tribunal held that the fact of accident was proved that due to rash and negligent driving of the truck the injuries were caused to the respondent no. 1 of these appeals in respect of which compensation has been awarded but it was held that the person who was driving the truck was not having driving licence and, therefore, the owner of the vehicle, i. e. , truck was liable to make payment of the amount of compensation but relying on national Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swaran singh, 2004 ACJ 1 (SC), it was held by the tribunal that Honble Supreme Court has laid down that if there is breach of the terms of insurance policy the owner of the vehicle is liable to make payment of compensation but first payment will be made to the victims by the insurance company which will be entitled to recover it from owner of the vehicle. In this case award has been made against the appellant-owner of the vehicle but a direction has been made that fi