IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Reserve: 15.09.2025 Date of Pronouncement:22.09.2025 Chander Dev (minor) ......Appellant Vs.

Sahil and anr. ......Respondent(s)

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA Present: Mr. K.S. Dhanora, Advocate, for the appellant.

Mr. Bhupender Singh, Advocate for the respondents.

****

SUDEEPTI SHARMA J.

1. The present appeal has been preferred against the award dated 13.11.2013 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Karnal (for short, 'the Tribunal') in the claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for enhancement of compensation granted to the appellant/claimant, whereby the claimant-appellant was awarded Rs.8337/- along with interest @ 7.5 % per annum, on account of injuries suffered by the appellant in a motor vehicular accident, which occurred on 23.05.2010.

2. As sole issue for determination in the present appeal is confined to quantum of compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal, a detailed narration of the facts of the case are not reproduced for the sake of brevity.

SUBMISSIONS OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES

3. Learned counsel for the claimant-appellant contends that the amount assessed by the learned Tribunal is on the lower side. He further contends that the learned tribunal has not granted any amount towards special diet, transportation diet etc. Therefore, he prays that the present appeal be allowed and compensation be enhanced as per latest law.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents, at the very outset, contends that the present appeal is not maintainable under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, as no appeal shall lie from from an award of the tribunal, if the amount awarded is less than Rs.10,000/-. He further contends that in the instant case, the amount awarded by the learned tribunal is Rs.8337/- with interest @7.5% per annum, thereby precluding the right to appeal.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the whole record of this case.

6. The challenge in the present appeal is to award dated 13.11.2013 passed by the learned tribunal, granting compensation of Rs.8337/- for the injuries suffered by the claimant. The appeal is not maintainable due to statutory bar under Section 173(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. However, This court in FAO- 5720-2006 titled as Kamlesh alias Sonia Vs. Bhola Singh and others decided on

03.12.2024, has already dealt with a similar issue and held as follows :-

9. The instant appeal has been instituted by the appellant against the respondents, who were also the contesting litigants before the learned Tribunal. Although it is well-established that the appeal is rendered non-maintainable by virtue of the statutory bar under Section 173(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and the proper recourse lies in filing a revision petition, this court is inclined to address the matter to uphold the interests of justice.

10. RELEVANT LEGAL PROVISION UNDER MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988

173. Appeals. - (1) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (2), any person aggrieved by an award of a Claims Tribunal may, within ninety days from the date of the award, prefer an appeal to the High Court:

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 twenty-five thousand rupees or fifty per cent of the amount so awarded, whichever is less, in the manner directed by the High Court:

Provided further that the High Court may entertain the appeal after the expiry of the said period of ninety days, if it is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from preferring the appeal in time.

(2) No appeal shall lie against any award of a Claims Tribunal if the amount in dispute in the appeal is less than ¹[one lakh] rupees.

1. Substituted by Act 32 of 2019, Sec.57, for “ten thousand” [w.e.f 1.04.2022, vide S.O.859(E), dated 25^th February, 2022]

11. RELEVANT PRO