ORDER Dr. Bhaktavatsala, J The petitioner -National Insurance Company Limited, is before this Court under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a writ of certiorari quashing the impugned judgment and award dated 25.8.2005 (Annexure-C) made in MVC No.64/2004 on the file of M ACT, Karwar. 2. F or the purpose of convenience and better understanding, the petitioner, the respondent Nos.1,2 and 3 herein are referred to as 'the insurer', 'the claimant', 'the insured', and 'the State Road Transport Corporation' (SRTC), respectively. 3. The brief facts of the case leading to the filing of the Petition may be stated as under: On 30.3.2004 at about 5.00 p.m., due to rash and negligent driving of Tat a Sumo vehicle bearing registration No.K.A 30/M 1896 (owned by the respondent No.2 herein), by its driver, while overtaking a SRTC bus went and dashed against another SRTC bus bearing registration No.31A 31/F 768, which was coming from the opposite direction. In that accident the claimant and others who were travelling in the vehicle sustained injuries. The claimant filed a claim petition in MVC 64/2004 on the file of MACT at Karwar, seeking grant of compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- towards injuries, against the owner, insurer and the SRTC. The owner of Tata Sumo did not file written statement. The insurer filed written statement denying the averments of the claim petition and liability of the insurer. Without prejudice, it had taken the contention that there was contributory negligence by the drivers of both the vehicles. Permission was also sought for under Section 170 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (in short 'MV Act') to contest the claim on all grounds. The Tribunal framed necessary issues. In support of the case of the claimant, has got himself examined as P. W-l and got marked Exs.P-1 to P-7. In rebuttal, one Sudheer Ramachandra Nayak was examined as R.W-1 and copy of insurance policy was got marked as EX.R-1. The Tribunal, by judgment dated 25.8.2005, allowed the claim petition partly granting compensation of Rs.4,500/- with costs and interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of Petition till realisation and directing the insurer to deposit the compensation amount within two months from the date of the award. The Tribunal, by judgment dated 25.8.2005, allowed the claim petition partly granting compensation of Rs.4,500/- with costs and interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of Petition till realisation and directing the insurer to deposit the compensation amount within two months from the date of the award. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and award made by the Tribunal, the insurer is before this Court urging the following grounds: (i) that the insurer has obtained permission under Section 170 of the MV Act to contest the claim petition on all the grounds, (ii) that the Tata Sumo in question being a private vehicle was hired by the claimant and others and travelling in violation of the insurance policy conditions and therefore the risk of the passengers travelling in the vehicle for hire or reward is not covered, (iii) that the insurer is not liable to pay any compensation as the vehicle in question was used in contravention of the insurance policy and terms and conditions, (iv) that the contentions taken by the Insurance Company was not properly considered and appreciated and the Tribunal erred in fastening the liability of the insured on the insurer. 4. Learned Counsel for the insurer submits that as per sub-Section (1) of Section 173 of the MV Act, the insurer is an aggrieved person. But, under sub-Section (2) of Section 173 of the MV Act, the right of appeal is taken away as the amount in dispute in the appeal is less than Rs. 10,000/-. 5. In the instant case, the Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.4,500/- with costs and interest at the rate of 6% per annum. Even if the costs and interest are included, the amount in dispute would be less than Rs.10,000/-. 6. In view of the grounds and arguments addressed by the learned Counsel for the insurer, it is useful to refer to Section of 173 of the MV Act. Section 173 of the MV Act reads as under: "173. Even if the costs and interest are included, the amount in dispute would be less than Rs.10,000/-. 6. In view of the grounds and arguments addressed by the learned Counsel for the insurer, it is useful to refer to Section of 173 of the MV Act. Section 173 of the MV Act reads as under: "173. Appeals.-(1) Subject to the provisions of sub-Section (2), any person aggrieved by an award of a Claims Tribunal may, within ninety days from the date of the award, prefer an appeal to the High Court: 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 percent of the amount so awarded, whichever is less, in the manner directed by the High Court. Provided further that the High Court may entertain the appeal after the expiry of the said period of ninety days, if it is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from preferring the appeal in time." (2) No appeal shall lie against any award of a Claims Tribunal if the amount in dispute in the appeal is less than ten thousand rupees. 7. According to sub-Section (2) of sub-Section 173 of the MV Act, no appeal shall lie against any award of a Claims Tribunal, if the amount in dispute is less than Rs. 10,000. But, no alternative remedy is provided in the MV Act. 8. The Special Bench of this Court in UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER ETC., vs M/S. MYSORE PAPER MILLS LTD. ETC. (in short 'Mysore Paper Mills case') held "that the Claims Tribunal established under the MV Act, is not a Court subordinate to High Court and therefore the orders of the Tribunal is not revisable under Section 115 of CPC by High Court". But, when the same question arose before Madhya Pradesh High Court, at Jabalpur Bench, in NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. But, when the same question arose before Madhya Pradesh High Court, at Jabalpur Bench, in NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. vs SHRIKANT AND OTHERS, the Special Bench of five Judges, after referring to the decision rendered in Mysore Paper Mills case, supra, has taken a contrary view holding ''that when a remedy of Appeal is not available under Section 173(2) of MV Act, where the amount in dispute is less than Rs.1 0,000/- there is a remedy of revision under Section 115 of CPC and not under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India". 9. It is implicit from language employed in Section 173 of the MV Act that when an aggrieved person admits the liability, he can not question the award if the amount in dispute is less than Rs. 10,000/-. In other words, prudent interpretation of sub-Section (2) Section 173 of the MV Act would be to mean that only when the quantum of compensation is questioned, the liability being admitted, there would be a bar for filing an appeal. In the instant case, the insurer has questioned the very liability, on the ground of violation of terms and conditions of insurance policy. Hence, the aggrieved party namely driver, owner or insurer questions the very liability to pay compensation, he or the insurer, as the case may be, shall have the right of appeal under section 173 of the MV Act, notwithstanding the amount in dispute is below Rs. 10,000/-. In my view the cap provided in the above said provision does not serve or benefit the claimant as well as aggrieved common man. It is for the Parliament to take note of the same and bring necessary amendment to the MV Act and do the needful. 10. For the reasons stated above, it is held the petitioner/insurer shall have the right of appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and accordingly the writ petition is disposed off, with liberty to file Appeal under Section 173 of the MV Act. No costs.