Sunita vs National Insurance Co. Ltd.

Pratap Krishna Lohra, J.—Appellants non-claimants have preferred this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act (for short, ''Act of 1988'') challenging the impugned judgment and award dated 7th of April 2012, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raisinghnagar, District Sri Ganganagar (for short, ''learned Tribunal'').

The learned Tribunal, while adjudicating the claim of respondent claimants under Section 166 of the Act of 1988 in Claim Case No. 25 of 2006, awarded compensation to the tune of Rs. 4,41,500 for death of Mr. Banwarilal in the motor accident. Although offending vehicle was insured with the first respondent Insurance Company but the learned Tribunal has exonerated it from liability to pay compensation and fastened the liability to pay compensation on appellants non-claimants.

The appeal is presented before this Court on 3rd of July 2012. On scrutiny, office has reported two defects; (1) Compensation Certificate under Section 173 M.V. Act not filed, and (2) Synopsis not filed.

The learned counsel has made endeavor to remove defect No. 2 but defect No. 1 is not cured. On 7th January 2014, three weeks'' time was allowed to the learned counsel for the appellants for removal of defects. Again on 25th of March 2014, two weeks'' time was allowed for doing needful. Lastly, on 18th August 2014, opportunity of 10 days was allowed to the learned counsel for the appellants for removing defect No. 1, however, defect No. 1 has not been removed till date.

Appellants have filed this appeal without enclosing certificate as envisaged under proviso to sub-sec. (1) of Section 173 of the Act of 1988.

Proviso to sub-sec. (1) of Section 173 of the Act of 1988 postulates that an incumbent filing an appeal is required to deposit Rs. 25,000 or 50% of the amount awarded by the Tribunal, whichever is less, before laying an appeal. The proviso reads as under:

"Provided that no appeal by the person who is required to pay any amount in terms of such award shall be entertained by the High Court unless he has deposited with it twenty-five thousand rupees or fifty per cent, of the amount so awarded, whichever is less, in the manner directed by the High Court."

The phraseology of the aforementioned statutory provision admits of no ambiguity. It is clear and categoric, and mandates that no appeal by the person who is required to pay any amount in terms of award shall be entertained by this Court unless he has deposited Rs. 25,000 or 50% of the amount so awarded, whichever is less, in the manner directed by the Court. In the instant case, appellants have presented the appeal on 7th of July 2012 and since then almost two and half years have elapsed but no endeavor is made by them to deposit the requisite amount as envisaged under sub-sec. (1) of Section 173 of the Act of 1988. There remains no quarrel that object behind incorporating the proviso to Section 173(1) of the Act of 1988 is remedial and beneficial. The requirement of deposit of the amount, as a condition precedent to the entertainability of the appeal, protects the interest of the claimant in whose favour an award has been made. By making it obligatory to deposit the amount specified in proviso to Section 173(1), the legislature has made it clear that one who wants to challenge the award of compensation must part with a specific amount, which can in appropriate cases be made available to the claimants even before final adjudication of the appeal.

Looking to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, wherein the insurer has been absolved of its liability to pay compensation in terms of the insurance policy, it is obligatory for the appellants to deposit requisite amount as envisaged under proviso to sub-sec. (1) of Section 173 of the Act of 1988. It is really strange that appellants have not deposited the requisite amount for obtaining the certificate despite availing many opportunities and since passing of the award more than two and half years have passed. From the date of presentation of the appeal before this Court also almost two and half years have elapsed and the appellants have not made compliance of the mandatory provision which is pre-requisite for entertaining this appeal. This callousness and total apathy of the appellants in pursuing this appeal is a matter of grave concern and no further latitude can be given to the appellants.

Learned counsel for the appellants has made a request for granting him exemption from production of the certificate. In my considered opinion, no such exemption can be granted, nor can be claimed by a litigant availing the remedy of appeal being a person, who is required to pay amount of compensation in terms of the award.

Reliance in this behalf can be profitably made to a decision of Full Bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court in case of Gaya Prasad and Another Vs. Suresh Kumar, , wherein the Court after discussing a large number of judgments of various High Courts and Supreme Court has held in clear and unequivocal terms that before filing an appeal it is mandatory to make requisite deposit as contemplated under Section 173(1).

In above view of the matter, in want of requisite certificate, the appeal is not entertainable.

Consequently, for non-compliance of the mandatory provision contained in proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 173 of the Act of 1988 for almost two and half years since filing of the appeal, the appeal is liable to be rejected and the same is hereby rejected.