Hon’ble Attau Rahman Masoodi, J.—Heard Sri Akhter Abbas, learned counsel for the review petitioner and Sri Shikhar Anand and Sri Anurag Shukla, learned counsel for the respondents.

2. Delay in moving the review applications is condoned.

The following three important questions of law have arisen in the present review petitions:

(i) Whether the review petitions filed under Chapter V Rule 12 of the High Court Rules read with Order XLVII CPC are maintainable;

(ii) Whether valuation of appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for the purposes of its appellate jurisdiction is to be construed having regard to the amount what it is set out in the claim petition or the amount allowed by the Tribunal in its award;

(iii) Whether the judgment passed by learned Single Judge of this Court even if the appeal is beyond its pecuniary jurisdiction by virtue of Chapter V Rule 2(c) of the High Court Rules, may be set aside as void.

3. Insofar as issue No. 1 mentioned above is concerned, learned counsel for the review petitioner inviting attention of this Court to Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has argued that the statute creates a right of appeal in favour of the aggrieved person against an award rendered by the Tribunal and High Court is the forum before which the appeal lies. As far as the procedure regulating the hearing of appeal and strength of Judges in a Bench is concerned, the Special Act does not provide any guidance. In such a situation, learned counsel for the review petitioner has drawn attention of this Court to Section 108 of CPC which reads as under:

“108 : Procedure in appeals from appellate decrees and orders : The provisions of this Part relating to appeals from original decrees shall, so far as may be, apply to appeals-

(a) from appellate decrees, and

(b) from orders made under this Code or under any special or local law in which a different procedure is not provided.”

Undisputedly, right to appeal is created under the Special Statute i.e. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and for the purposes of hearing such an appeal the provisions of Part VII CPC would apply. Section-98 contained in Part VII CPC provides as under:

98. Decision where appeal heard by two or more Judges.

(1) Where an appeal is heard by a Bench of two or more Judges, the appeal shall be decided in accordance with the opinion of such Judges or of the majority (if any) of such Judges.

(2) Where there is no such majority which concurs in a judgment varying or reversing the decree appealed from, such decree shall be confirmed:

Provided that where the Bench hearing the appeal is composed of two Judges belonging to a Court consisting of more than two Judges, and the Judges composing the Bench differ in opinion on a point of law, they may state the point of law upon which they differ and the appeal shall then be heard upon that point only by one or more of the other Judges, and such point shall be decided according to the opinion of the majority (if any) of the Judges who have heard the appeal, including those who first heard it.”

4. In the present case, two appeals were filed before this Court which were registered as FAFO No. 338 of 2012 filed by the claimants for enhancement of compensation and FAFO No. 417 of 2012 filed by UPSRTC challenging the award rendered by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in MACP No. 87 of 2010 decided on 30.1.2012 awarding a compensation of Rs. 4,90,050/-. The appeal for enhancement of compensation was moved prior in point of time and thereafter the appeal filed by UPSRTC challenging the same award of the Tribunal came to be filed. The appeal filed by the claimants sets out valuation of the appeal as under:

Valuation of Appeal : Rs. 45,09,950/-

FAFO filed by UPSRTC sets out valuation of appeal as under:

Valuation of the Claim : Rs. 50,00,000/-

Valuation of Present Appeal : Rs. 4,90,050/-

5. Both the appeals filed before this Court were reported by the registry to be cognizable before a Division Bench. This positi