ORDER

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants/claimants on the question of maintainability of instant Civil Revision which has been filed on 20.01.2023 seeking enhancement of Rs.95,000/- in the final award dtd. 27.1.2017 passed by MACT, Lakhnadaun, Distt. Seoni in claim case no. 41/2014, whereby an award of Rs. 34,15,616/- has been passed.

2. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that he wanted to file Misc. Appeal but in the light of objections being raised by the Registry of this Court in the light of decision/order dtd. 07.03.2022 passed by coordinate Bench at Indore in Misc. Appeal no. 814/2022 (Uzer Khan Vs. Faruq and others), the petitioners have preferred the instant civil revision and as per this decision, the amount in dispute being less than Rs.1,00,000/-, the civil revision is maintainable.

3. I have carefully gone through the order in the case of Uzer Khan (supra), which is based upon decision/order dtd. 21.11.2016 passed by coordinate Bench at Gwalior in M.A. 1096/2016 (Netram Vs. Rajendra Singh Yadav and others) and another decision of coordinate Bench of High Court of Himachal Pradesh in the case Pala Ram Vs. Punjab Roadways and another 2007 ACJ 983. I have also gone through both the decisions in the case of Netram (supra) and Pala Ram (supra), but in both these decisions the objection of maintainability raised by the Registry, has been overruled and the Misc. Appeals of the claimants have been held to be maintainable.

4. The decision given by coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Netram (supra) has in fact considered and followed another coordinate Bench decision of Rajasthan High Court in the case of Ghanshyam Vs. Additional District Judge, MACT Cases 2009 ACJ 1946, relevant paras 8 and 9 of which are as under :-

"8. Per Sub-section (1) of Section 173, any person aggrieved by the award of the Claims Tribunal could prefer appeal to the High Court within 90 days from the date of award. The provisos to Sub-section (1) of Section 173 are to the effect that no appeal by the person who is required to pay any amount under the award would be entertained by the High Court unless a sum of Rs.25,000 or 50 per cent of the award amount, whichever be the less, has been deposited; and that the appeal could be entertained even after expiry of period of 90 days upon the appellant satisfying the High Court that he was prevented by sufficient cause from preferring the appeal in time. Sub-section (2) of Section 173, however, bars an appeal if the amount in dispute in the appeal is less than Rs.10,000. It is not the award amount that Sub-section (2) of Section 173 refers to; but it is the amount in dispute in appeal that alone is relevant.

9. The Tribunal in the present case has awarded to the petitioner an amount of Rs. 9,000 together with interest at the rate of 7.5 per cent per annum. Even if the component of interest is left aside and the principal amount as awarded by Tribunal is taken into consideration, the fact remains that the said amount of Rs.9,000 is the one that has been awarded to the petitioner and is not the amount in dispute. If the said award amount of Rs.9,000 alone was sought to be questioned in appeal by the person(s) against whom the award has been made, may be the question of competence of such an appeal would have arisen for the bar as spelt out in Sub-section (2) of Section 173 of the Act. The non-applicants are not questioning the award amount and the said amount of Rs. 9,000 as awarded by the Tribunal is not at all the amount in dispute in this matter. Reference to the decision in Illapu Seethamma's case, 2001 ACJ 328 (AP), appears to be entirely misplaced. The said common judgment relates to nine appeals preferred by the insurer of the vehicle involved in the accident against whom the award had been made by concerned Tribunal; and in the said decision, such appeals (four in number) wherein the amount in dispute was found to be less than Rs.10,000 were held to be incompetent. In the present ca