LAWS(MPH)-2006-9-4

NARENDRA Vs. B C M HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL

Decided On September 07, 2006
NARENDRA Appellant
V/S
B.C.M.HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ACCORDING to the learned senior counsel, section 173 of the Motor vehicles Act, 1988 gives a right of appeal to any person who is aggrieved by an award passed by the Claims Tribunal. Subsection (2) thereof is in the nature of an exception or proviso to restrict the said right of appeal, if the amount in dispute in appeal is less than Rs. 10,000. According to learned counsel, the amount in dispute in appeal obviously refers to the amount which is under challenge in appeal. To elaborate this, the learned senior counsel gave an example. According to him if the claimant prefers a claim petition claiming rs. 10,000 as the total amount of compensation and the Claims Tribunal awards only Rs. 5,000 as compensation, in such a case the amount in dispute in appeal would be the remaining amount of Rs. 5,000 so far as the claimant is concerned and the amount of Rs. 5,000 awarded, so far as owner and insurer are concerned because the owner and insurer are trying to get rid of Rs. 5,000 which is awarded against them and in case of claimant, he is claiming the remaining amount of Rs. 5,000. Thus, in either case, the amount in dispute in appeal is Rs. 5,000 and in such a situation no appeal would be maintainable in view of the provisions of sub-section (2)of section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act. He also gave another example to illustrate the point. According to him if a claimant claims Rs. 1,00,000 and Claims Tribunal awarded only Rs. 5,000 as compensation.

(2.) IN claimant's appeal for enhancement, the enhanced amount would be the amount in dispute in appeal and if it is more than rs. 10,000 then appeal would be maintainable. But in case of owner or insurer, the appeal would not be maintainable because the amount in dispute in appeal is only rs. 5,000, which they want to get rid off.

(3.) THE learned counsel also drew attention to a Division Bench decision of Delhi High court in Vidya Wati v. Himachal Government Transport, 1970 ACJ 424 (Delhi ). Thus, it is clear that the value put forth in appeal is the amount in dispute in appeal and in each case it has to be ascertained while considering the question of maintainability of the appeal in view of this legal position, the present appeal is maintainable and cannot be dismissed at the threshold under sub-section (2) of section 173 of the motor Vehicles Act. Before parting with this order, I must record my appreciation for the valuable assistance rendered by the learned amicus curiae to clarify the legal position in their immaculate style. Mr. Kushwah is heard on the question of admission. Record perused. Appeal is admitted for final hearing.