An appeal under the Motor Vehicles Act is unmaintainable if the amount in dispute is less than Rs. 10,000 as per S.173(2).

1. This appeal arises from the award dated 2.11.2012 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jagdalpur, District Bastar in Claim Case No. 131 of 2008.

2. Grievance is against fixation of liability to an extent of Rs. 15,000 upon the appellant / owner of the offending vehicle bearing registration No. CG 17 - ZC 0659 to satisfy the compensation awarded towards the third party property damage, in connection with an accident occurred on 13.10.2007. Since the appeal is belated by 231 days, it is sought to be condoned by filing an IA as well.

3. We heard Mr. Sudeep Johri, the learned counsel for the appellant, as well as the learned counsel for the respondents No. 3 at length.

4. The appellant is owner of the vehicle bearing registration No. CG 08 - ZA 0162 insured by the respondent No. 3. When the above vehicle was being driven by the respondent No. 2 on 13.10.2007, it collided with the parked bus bearing registration No. CG 17 - ZC 0659 belonging to the respondent No. 1. This led to a claim petition before the Tribunal as aforesaid seeking compensation in connection with the damage caused to the bus because of the involvement of the offending vehicle belonging to the appellant.

5. On conclusion of the trial, though huge compensation was sought for under various heads, the Tribunal awarded only a sum of Rs. 15,000 towards the damages. Out of the said amount, the statutory liability in terms of S.147 (2) (b) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'the MV Act') to an extent of Rs. 6,000 was directed to be satisfied by the insurer, by virtue of valid policy in existence and the balance sum of Rs. 9,000 was directed to be satisfied by the owner of the vehicle, i.e., the appellant, which is the subject - matter of challenge.

6. Mr. Sudeep Johri, the learned counsel for the appellant, submits that the policy issued in respect of the vehicle belonging to the appellant was a comprehensive policy and hence the entire liability ought to have been directed to be satisfied by the insurer, instead of confining the same to Rs. 6,000, leaving the balance to be cleared by the appellant.

7. But the primary question to be considered is whether this appeal itself is maintainable in law. As mentioned already, the appeal is belated by 231 days, which is sought to be condoned by filing an application, where notice was ordered on 21.11.2013. The delay in filing the appeal has not been condoned, but for condoning the delay in filing the necessary process fees as per the orders passed in relevant IAs (sic). According to us, the reason for condoning the inordinate delay has not been properly explained, except for saying that it was due to the lapse / omission of the former clerk, without disclosing the vital particulars.

8. Admittedly, award in dispute is only to an extent of Rs. 9,000; insofar as, out of the total sum of Rs. 15,000 awarded by the Tribunal, Rs. 6,000 is ordered to be satisfied by the insurer, by virtue of the statutory extent of coverage towards TPPD (Third Party Property Damage) under the policy, in terms of S.147 (2) (b) of MV Act. S.173 (2) of the MV Act clearly stipulates that no appeal shall lie against any award of Claims Tribunal if the amount in dispute in the appeal is less than Rs. 10,000. Since the amount in dispute is stated as only Rs. 9,000 no appeal is maintainable, by virtue of the statutory bar under S.173 (2) of the MV Act.

9. In the above circumstances, we are of the view that the appeal is not maintainable either on facts or in law and accordingly it stands dismissed along with the petition to condone the delay.
Appeal dismissed.