ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED Vs. M BULLEMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These batch of LPAs were filed by the oriental Insurance Company against the common Judgment of the learned Single Judge in dismissing the AAOs filed by the Insurance Company on the ground that the appeals are not maintainable.

(2.) The facts of the case are that on 31-8-1987 there was an accident involving the lorry bearing ADB1765 in which three persons died and 24 others received injuries. The injured persons filed claim petitions before 1-7-1989. The Claims Tribunal, by its common award dated 6-4-90, held that the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the lorry by its driver and awarded compensation against the owner and driver of the lorry and also the insurance company ranging from Rs.2000/- to Rs.7500/-. Against the said order, the insurance company filed AAOs in this Court on 5-10-1990. When the appeals came up for hearing before the learned Single Judge, a preliminary objection was taken by the claimants that the appeals are not maintainable under Sec.l73(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter called the 'new Act')as the amounts in dispute in all the appeals are less than Rs. 10,000/-. The learned Single Judgeupheld their contention and dismissed the appeals. Aggrieved by the said order, the present LPAs were filed.

(3.) The learned counsel for theappellant Mr. M. Srinivasa Rao contended that the accident took place on 31-8-1987 whereas the New Act came into force on 1-7-1989 and the award was passed by the Claims Tribunal on 6-4-1990. It is further contended by him that the appeal is a continuation of the suit and the Original Petitions filed before the Claims Tribunal are deemed to be suits and therefore the statutory appeal, which is provided, is a substantive right and the said right has to be exercised in accordance with the right of appeal conferred under Sec. 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter called the Old Act), and as per the above Section if the amount of compensation awarded is 2000/-or more than Rs.2000/-, appeal can be filed. In other words,appeal is not maintainable where the compensation awarded is less than Rs. 2000/-. Therefore he contended that the bar imposed in Sec.173(2) of the New Act that no appeal lies where the compensation awarded is less than Rs. 10,000/- is not there in Sec. 110-D of the Old Act and as the right of appeal is a substantive right, it accrues on the date when the claim petitions were filed and therefore the appellants have got a right of appeal under the Old Act under Sec.110-D in which there is no bar to file an appeal where the compensation awarded is Rs. 2000/- or more than Rs. 2000/- and there is a bar to file an appeal when the compensation awarded is less than Rs. 2000/- and therefore the learned Single Judge erred in dismissing the appeals on the ground that they are not maintainable, as the right of appeal is a statutory right conferred by the statute.