ABDULLA Vs. K.MOIDU AND OTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The preliminary objection raised by the Insurance Company is on the maintainability of the appeal relying on [(2006) 4 KLT 828] Ajesh Alex v. John and others . The learned Counsel appearing for the claimant/appellant submits that in an unnumbered order of a Division Bench of this Court, in Unnumbered Z.M.A.C.A No.56/2015, a contrary view has been taken. Here the appellant claimed a total amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- and the award was only 7,000/-. Hence the appeal by the claimant is maintainable; since definitely the amount in dispute in the appeal is not that was awarded, but the failure to award more, to the extent of Rs. 1,93,000/-; is the contention.

(2.) I do not think even the order in Ajesh Alex (supra) would stand against the appeal being considered. That was also an unnumbered case in which the learned Single Judge had directed numbering on the following reasoning. Paragraph 7 is extracted hereunder:

(3.) The appeal therein was filed by a debtor in the award, meaning the registered owner of the offending vehicle; who was mulcted with the liability to satisfy the award amounts. Even then, the learned Single Judge found that the total liability with interest would be above Rs. 10,000/- and hence directed numbering of the appeal. Therein it was found that the use of the words "amount in dispute in the appeal" in sub-section (2) of Section 173 as distinguished from the "compensation" fixed under Section 168, was a clear indication that the former was confined to the compensation awarded. A Division Bench decision win Oriental Fire and General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Narayani Amma (1984 KLT 410) was distinguished finding that there the Division Bench only declared that the future interest accruing by virtue of the decree, till the date of filing of appeal cannot be added to determine the amount in dispute in the appeal. In Ajesh Alex (supra), the amounts awarded and the interest accruing till the date of award as also the costs took the total above the limit prescribed, and hence the appeal was held to be maintainable.