The requirement of pre-deposit of the awarded amount as a condition of appeal under the proviso to S. 173 (1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, does not apply to appeals against awards in respect of which claim was presented before the Act came into force.

( 1 ) THIS order will dispose of the appellant's application for exemption from depositing the amount of Rs. 25000/- (I. A. No. 241 /90) and respondent's objection under proviso to S. 173 (1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, as to deposit of Rupees 25000/- or 50% of the amount so awarded, whichever is less, in the manner directed by this Court.

( 2 ) AT the hearing of applications Shri N. S. Purohit, for the appellant and Shri R. C. Kochatta, for the respondents-objectors, were heard.

( 3 ) SHRI Purohit mainly relying on the decisions of this Court in Lakhmichand v. Mitthu, AIR 1984 Madh Pra 112; Chuluram v. Bhagatram, AIR 1980 Madh Pra 16; Sitaram v. Chaturao, 1981 Jab LJ 171 and Dattatray v. Mangal, AIR 1983 Madh Pra 82 submitted that the appeal under the old Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, did not require any such deposit being made and S. 217 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, providing for repeal and savings does not show that the new provision is to apply to appeal against award in respect of which claim was presented before the present Act was brought into force. On the other hand sub-sec. (4) shows that mention of particular matter in the section shall not be held to prejudice or affect the general application of S. 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1987, with regard to the effect of appeals. Shri Purohit, therefore, submitted that predeposit of amount under the proviso to S. 173 (1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 may not be insisted upon and appeal rejected on that count.

( 4 ) SHRI Kochatta, however, strongly relying on a Division Bench decision of Allahabad High Court in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. , Haldwani v. Dhanram Singh, AIR 1990 All 30, submitted that this decision was a complete answer to Shri Purohit's contention. Allahabad High Court relying on decisions referred to therein in the judgment in paras 14 and 15 held as under:-"from the above decision two things are clear i. e. only substantive rights possessed by a party is of a right to appeal and secondly the forum where the appeal will lie and the limitation to do so are all matters of procedure which are not saved by the repealing Act. ""a look at S. 217 of the new Act in the light of the decision referred to earlier it will be noticed that there is no specific provision to save the right of the appellant under the old Act but in view of S. 6 of the General Clauses Act which have been made applicable it would be proper to assume that in cases decided before the repealing Act came into force the right of appeal will survive and can be enforced by lodging an appeal but this right of filing of appeal must be availed only in the manner provided under the repealing Act i. e. as required by S. 173 of the new Act. "before dealing with merits of the arguments of the parties material portions of S. 217 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 may be reproduced s. 217. Repeal and savings.- (1) The Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (4 of 1939) and any law corresponding to that Act in force in any State immediately before the commencement of this Act in that State (hereafter in this section referred to as the repealed enactments) are hereby repealed. (4) The mention of particular matters in this case shall not be held to prejudice or affect the general application of S. 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 (10 of 1897) with regard to the effect of repeals. (Sub-secs. (2) and (3) are not material for the present order ). From the foregoing it would be seen that the repealing provision does not prejudice or affect the right of appeal which a party may have had under the repealed Act. ( 5 ) UNDER S. 110-D of the repealed Act a person aggrieved by an award of Claims Tribunal subject to amount in dispute in the appeal being not less than Rs. 2000/- had an unrestricted right of appeal without any condition as to pre-deposit of the awarded amount. In Lakhmichand v. Mitthu (AIR 1984 Madh Pra 112) (supra) this Court was dealing with S. 96 (4) of C. P. C. inserted by S. 33 of Code of Civil Pro