Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 788 (KAR)

Shabeer v. Rathan Singh

2000-11-28

H.N.TILHARI

body2000
ORDER Hari Nath Tilhari, J.—Heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioner Sri K.T. Mohan. 2. The Writ Petition is misconceived as, appeal did lay under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act from the award made by the Tribunal especially, the perusal of the grounds of Petition also reveals that, Petitioner has challenged the award of compensation to be too meagre and insufficient, he has also challenged the granting of interest at the rate of 6%, has to be increased and claimed interest to be awarded at the rate of 12%, and on the question of fastening of liability about payment of compensation on these grounds together could be taken in the appeal under Section 173. Learned Counsel submitted that, appeal has not been filed under the impression that, Section 173(2), barred the appeal. Learned Counsel is mistaken. 3. A perusal of Section 173, will per se reveal that, the learned Counsel erred in opining that, appeal could not be filed in view of Sub-section (2). Sub-section (2) of Section 173 reads: No appeal shall lie against any award of the Claims Tribunal if amount in dispute in appeal is less than 10,000/- rupees. 4. Learned Counsel has contended that, on account of the grant of award of Rs. 5,000/-, so, appeal is not maintainable. In what cases, the Section 173(2), bars the filing of the appeal are; where difference of the amount in between the two items, namely, the one claimed and the one granted is less than Rs. 10,000/-. If the amount in dispute in appeal is less than Rs. 10,000/-, appeal is not maintainable but where amount in dispute in appeal is more than ten thousand, appeal is maintainable and there is no bar to the filing and entertaining to appeal. In the present case, the claim was made for compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,00,000/-, and the Tribunal has awarded Rs. 5,000/-, as compensation. Therefore, the amount in dispute in appeal, it would be about Rs. 95,000/- i.e., more than ten thousand rupees and not less than ten thousand. So, the amount in dispute in appeal cannot be said to be less than Rs. 10,000/-. 5. It is clarified that, bar under Section 173(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 will apply if amount of dispute in appeal is less than Rs. 10,000/-. 6. 95,000/- i.e., more than ten thousand rupees and not less than ten thousand. So, the amount in dispute in appeal cannot be said to be less than Rs. 10,000/-. 5. It is clarified that, bar under Section 173(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 will apply if amount of dispute in appeal is less than Rs. 10,000/-. 6. Had in this case, appeal being filed by the owner or insurer challenging the award of compensation of Rs. 5,000/-, and the plea would have been of the owner of the vehicle that, no compensation should have been awarded then no doubt, appeal could not be maintained because in that case, amount awarded, namely, amount of Rs. 5,000/-, would have been in dispute in appeal but, where the claimant challenges the award and says amount of award of Rs. 5,000/- is meagre and the amount as, claimed by him should have been awarded, then, it means that difference between the amount granted and the one claimed, would be the amount in dispute in appeal and so amount in dispute is more than Rs. 10,000/-, meaning thereby, the amount in dispute is about Rs. 95,000/- i.e., sum of Rs, 1,00,000/- claimed minus Rs. 5,000/-. In this view of the matter in my opinion, as the Petitioner has got alternative remedy of filing appeal, the Petition cannot be entertained. 7. It is kept open to the present Petitioner to file an appeal from the award. It is further directed that the certified copies of the judgment and the award which have been filed as Annexures to the Writ Petition may be returned to the present writ Petitioner to enable him to file the appeal, but, he will have to furnish an electrostate true copy of the judgment for the purpose of the record of this Writ Petition. 8. Writ Petition is dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy being available with liberty to the Petitioner to file appeal with application for condonation of delay under Section 5 read with Section 14 of Limitation Act. Accordingly, the writ Petition is dismissed.