SOHAN SINGH Vs. KUSHLA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) An important issue which has arisen for determination by this Court in view of the office objection raised to the entertainability of the appeal is whether an appeal filed by a party against an award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal can be entertained by a Court without compliance of the proviso to S. 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').

(2.) Feeling aggrieved by the award dated 1-4-1995 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chandigarh, appellant-Sohan Singh, driver of bus No. HP-20-0601 filed this appeal on 3-7-1995. Registry of this Court raised an objection to the entertainability of the appeal on the ground that the appellant has not deposited Rs. 25,000/- as required by the proviso to S.173(1) of the Act. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted a reply to the said objection by stating that an amount of Rs. 25,000/- has been deposited vide bank draft No. 01/c-135040 dated 7-6-1995 in a connected appeal by the Himachal Pradesh Road Transport Corporation against the same award and, therefore, it was not necessary for the appellant to deposit Rs. 25,000 / -.

(3.) Shri H. S. Gill, learned senior Advocate, appearing for the appellant, argued that S.173(1) of the Act empowers any person aggrieved by an award of the Claims Tribunal to prefer an appeal to the High Court and once an appeal has been preferred by one of the aggrieved persons by depositing Rs. 25,000 /- or fifty per cent of the amount awarded by the Tribunal, other persons filing appeal against the same award are not required to make deposit in terms of proviso to Sec.173(1). Shri Gill argued that if the proviso to Sec. 173(1) is literally interpreted the same may lead to anomalous result inasmuch as in a given case the amount required to be deposited in terms of the proviso may exceed the total amount awarded by the Tribunal. On the other hand, Shri C. B. Goel and Shri Ashit Malik, Advocates, argued that the requirement of the deposit of a specific amount as a condition precedent to the entertainability of the appeal has to be fulfilled by any person preferring an appeal against the award if he is required to pay any amount in terms of such award and there is no reason for the Court to interpret the proviso to Sec. 173(1) in such a manner which defeats the very purpose of incorporating the requirement of the deposit of the amount.Section 173 of the Act reads as under:-