Judgment ( 1. ) THIS appeal under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (in short the Act) has been filed by the claimant against the award dated 20. 9. 2002 passed by Eighth Motor Accidents Claims tribunal, Gwalior in Claim Case No. 127 of 2001, by which the learned Tribunal dismissed the claim petition and directed the appellant-claimant to deposit the interim compensation awarded by Claims Tribunal amounting to Rs. 25,000 within a period of one month, failing which the insurance company, respondent No. 3, is free to initiate executing proceedings for recovery of the said amount from the claimant. ( 2. ) BRIEF facts of the case are that the appellant is working as a cleaner in truck bearing registration No. MP 07-G 1093. On 16. 9. 2000, the said truck was going from Bhopal to Gwalior and it was driven by respondent No. 1 very rashly and negligently. Near Kurawar at Bhopal-Byaora road, due to rash and negligent driving by the truck driver, the said truck was overturned. Due to said accident, the appellant received severe injuries on his right leg and his tibia fibula bone was fractured. He was admitted at the Government Hospital, nursinggarh, from where he was referred to Hamidia Hospital, Bhopal. The matter was reported at Police Station, Kurawar. The said police station registered Crime no. 218 of 2000. After investigation, respondent no. 1 was arrested and truck was also seized. Thereafter, challan was filed. Respondent No. 1 admitted the guilt and, therefore, the criminal court imposed fine of Rs. 1,700. As per opinion of the doctor of L. B. S. Hospital and Research Centre, bhopal, lower end of tibia was fractured. Immediately after accident on 16. 9. 2000, he was treated at Narsinggarh and M. L. C. was prepared at 6. 15 p. m. As per M. L. C. , exh. P7, the appellant received the following injuries: (1) L/w 7 cm x 2 cm x muscle depth lies over lateral surface of right foot. (2) L/w 5 cm x 2 cm x muscle depth lies over post surface of right ankle joint cutting. Tender calcaneus profuse bleeding. Dr. Dubey, who treated the appellant, opined that all the injuries are simple in nature. The appellant was never advised for X-ray. On 17. 9. 2000, he came at L. B. S. Hospital and Research Centre, bhopal. As per Exh. Tender calcaneus profuse bleeding. Dr. Dubey, who treated the appellant, opined that all the injuries are simple in nature. The appellant was never advised for X-ray. On 17. 9. 2000, he came at L. B. S. Hospital and Research Centre, bhopal. As per Exh. P9, he was admitted on 17. 9. 2000 at 12. 30 a. m. at L. B. S. Hospital and Research Centre, Bhopal. On 16. 9. 2000, he was referred to Hamidia Hospital vide Exh. P 11, but he was never treated there. As per discharge card, Exh. P 12, he was admitted from 17. 9. 2000 to 18. 9. 2000 at L. B. S. Hospital and research Centre, Bhopal. Neither x-ray report was filed by the appellant along with the claim petition before the claims Tribunal nor any X-ray was held either on 16. 9. 2000 or 17. 9. 2000. ( 3. ) APPELLANT filed a claim petition for compensation of Rs. 7,35,000 under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. ( 4. ) APPELLANT Ramesh Chand Rathore, aw 1, filed old X-ray report vide Exh. P19 and Exh. P20, in which it is stated that the injuries are old fracture lower 3rd tibia and old malunited fracture upper 3rd tibia and middle 3rd fibula. The said reports are dated 30. 12. 2000 and 12. 2. 2001 respectively. The appellant-claimant in para 12 of his cross-examination very specifically admitted that injuries mentioned in Exh. P19 and Exh. P20 are old injuries caused by cycle. The Claims Tribunal in view of the above admission came to the conclusion that the appellant failed to prove the injuries caused by the accident occurred on 16. 9. 2000 and, therefore, dismissed the claim petition and directed for refund of interim compensation of Rs. 25,000 by the impugned award. ( 5. ) LEARNED counsel for the appellant drew my attention to the documents Exh. P 1 to Exh. P20 including the permanent disability certificate, Exh. P14 issued on 19. 3. 2001 and submitted that the injuries mentioned in Exh. P19 and Exh. P20 are caused due to the accident occurred on 16. 9. 2000 and Claims Tribunal committed error in dismissing the claim petition of the appellant. Learned counsel for appellant also drew my attention to the evidence on record and submitted that the Claims Tribunal committed legal error in dismissing the claim petition of the appellant. ( 6. P19 and Exh. P20 are caused due to the accident occurred on 16. 9. 2000 and Claims Tribunal committed error in dismissing the claim petition of the appellant. Learned counsel for appellant also drew my attention to the evidence on record and submitted that the Claims Tribunal committed legal error in dismissing the claim petition of the appellant. ( 6. ) ON the other side, learned counsel for insurance company raised a preliminary objection regarding maintainability of the appeal on the ground that as per para 15 of the award, the Claims Tribunal directed for depositing the amount of Rs. 25,000 and the said finding is challenged by filing this appeal and as per proviso of section 173 of the Act, no amount has been deposited by the appellant and, therefore, appeal filed by the appellant is not maintainable. Learned counsel for respondent No. 3 further submitted that the offending vehicle, i. e. , the truck bearing registration No. MP 07-G 1093 is owned by Bindu Khan, respondent no. 2 and appellant-claimant. In support of the said contention, he drew my attention to F. I. R. , Exh. P3, in which it is stated that the truck No. MP 07-G 1093 is jointly owned by Bindu Khan, respondent no. 2 and appellant-claimant, therefore, the impugned award passed by the Claims tribunal is just and proper and the Claims tribunal has not committed any error in dismissing the claim petition of appellant. ( 7. ) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case. ( 8. ) ON a plain reading of the proviso of sub-section (1) of section 173 of the Act, any person, who is required to pay any amount under the award passed by Claims tribunal, prefers an appeal, his appeal can be entertained by this court unless he makes deposit of a specific amount as required by the said proviso and he cannot claim exemption from making the deposit on the ground that his claim petition has been rejected. It is not disputed by learned counsel for the appellant that no amount, as directed by the Claims Tribunal, has been deposited by him and, therefore, the present appeal filed by the appellant is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed by the reasons of the provisions of subsection (1) of section 173 of the Act. ( 9. It is not disputed by learned counsel for the appellant that no amount, as directed by the Claims Tribunal, has been deposited by him and, therefore, the present appeal filed by the appellant is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed by the reasons of the provisions of subsection (1) of section 173 of the Act. ( 9. ) AS per the averments made in the claim petition filed by the appellant, the accident occurred on 16. 9. 2000. At the time of the accident, he was working as cleaner of the offending vehicle and he received injuries, which are, as per M. L. C. report, Exh. P7, are simple in nature and he was referred to Hamidia Hospital, but he was never treated at Hamidia Hospital, bhopal. The appellant himself admitted at l. B. S. Hospital and Research Centre, Bhopal, which is evident from Exh. P8 and exh. P9. In Exh. P9, the doctor gave an opinion that X-ray shows fracture of right lower end tibia, but neither X-ray report is on record nor he gave details of the X-ray whether the X-ray is held either at Bhopal or at Nursinggarh. The appellant also filed exh. P19 and Exh. P20 X-ray reports and as per the said reports, the injuries received by the appellant are old fracture lower 3rd tibia and old malunited fractured upper 3rd tibia and middle 3rd fibula. The appellant, aw 1, in para 12 of his cross-examination very specifically admitted that the injuries, which are mentioned in Exhs. P19 and P20, are old in nature and received by a cycle. In view of the above admission made by the claimant, the Claims Tribunal came to the conclusion that neither any injury was received by the appellant nor any accident occurred on 16. 9. 2000. The treating doctor was neither examined nor any permanent disability certificate was prepared by the treating doctor and, therefore, the Claims tribunal has not committed any error in dismissing the claim petition and in holding that appellant did not receive injuries nor any accident occurred on 16. 9. 2000. The appellant filed permanent disability certificate dated 19. 2. 2001, Exh. P14. The said certificate was prepared by Dr. S. N. Tripathi, who never treated the appellant. ( 10. 9. 2000. The appellant filed permanent disability certificate dated 19. 2. 2001, Exh. P14. The said certificate was prepared by Dr. S. N. Tripathi, who never treated the appellant. ( 10. ) IN view of the above evidence on record, the learned Claims Tribunal has not committed any error in holding that the appellant has not received any injury from the accident occurred on 16. 9. 2000 and also has not committed any error in dismissing the claim petition because the appellant failed to prove the injuries received by him due to the accident occurred on 16. 9. 2000 and he also failed to prove that at the time of accident he was working as a cleaner in the offending vehicle nor he proved the accident. ( 11. ) IT is well settled proposition of law that onus lies on the claimant to prove his own case that not only there was an accident, but the tortfeasor was negligent in driving the offending vehicle which gave rise to the cause of action for the claim. ( 12. ) I fully agree with the findings recorded by the claims Tribunal that the claimant failed to prove his injuries and the Claims Tribunal has not committed any error in dismissing the claim petition of the appellant. Since the appellant failed to comply with the proviso to sub-section (1) of section 173 of the Act, therefore, the present appeal filed by the appellant is not entertainable and is liable to be dismissed as not maintainable. ( 13. ) FOR the above reasons, I do not find any merit in this appeal and it is accordingly dismissed on merits as well as for non-compliance of the mandatory provisions of section 173 of the Act, but without any order as to costs. Appeal dismissed.