HARIHAR SINGH Vs. NAWAL KISHORE CHAUHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present civil revision application is directed against the order dated 16.5.2001, passed by the learned 7th Additional District and Sessions Judge, Siwan, in Claim Case No. 15 of 2000 (Nawal Kishore Chauhan v. Harihar Singh), which is an order passed under section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The stamp report is to the effect that the order of the Claims Tribunal under section 140 of the Act is appealable and, therefore, the present civil revision is not maintainable. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contested the stamp report and he has, therefore, been heard at length on this issue. Mr. Ajay Kumar, learned counsel, has appeared on the question of maintainability of this application and assisted the court as amicus curiae.

(2.) The issue in so far as this court is concerned is no longer res Integra. The same has been decided by a Division Bench of this court in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Mohiuddin Kureshi, 1994 ACJ 74 (Patna), wherein the Division Bench has held that the order under section 140 of the Act is an award within the meaning of section 173 thereof and is, therefore, appealable. The Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court at Jabalpur has held to the same effect, the judgment of which is reported in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pritamlal, 1989 ACJ 1129 (MP). The Madhya Pradesh High Court, inter alia, relied on the judgment of the Allahabad High Court which has been reported in Sant Ram v. Surya Pal, 1986 ACJ 202 (Allahabad). Relying on the said judgment of the Allahabad High Court in Sant Ram v. Surya Pal (supra), and the judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pritamlal (supra), a Division Bench of the Kerala High Court at Ernakulam has held to the same effect, the judgment of which is reported in the case of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Padmavathy, 1990 ACJ 751 (Kerala). The learned single Judge of Rajasthan High Court at Jodhpur in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Heera, 2000 ACJ 963 (Rajasthan), has also held to the same effect.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he is interested in pursuing the civil revision application for the reason that the statutory appeal provided under section 173 of the Act stipulates that the appellant shall have to deposit Rs. 25,000 or 50 per cent of the awarded amount, whichever is less, as per the first proviso to section 173 of the Act. The contention is stated only to be rejected. Mandate of law has got to be accepted and the court cannot help it, to use the expression of a Division Bench of this court, wherein similar contention was advanced with respect to the Bihar and Orissa Public Demands Recovery Act. The Act is so structured. A Division Bench of this court in its judgment in Sawar Mai Choudhary v. State Bank of India, 1986 PLJR 661, has rejected a similar contention with respect to the provisions of Bihar and Orissa Public Demands Recovery Act, in the following words in paras 34 to 36, and are set out hereinbelow for the facility of quick reference: