Judgment S. Samvatsar, J. ( 1. ) This appeal is filed by the claimants being aggrieved by the award dated 18/4/2002 passed by Additional Member, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Gohad, District Bhind in Claim Case No. 35 of 2000 whereby the claim petition filed by the present appellants- claimants is dismissed with a direction to refund an amount of Rs. 50,000.00 received by the claimants towards no fault liability. ( 2. ) Brief facts of the case are that the claimants filed a claim petition alleging that Harijinder Singh, respondent No. 1, was driving tractor No. MP 06-J 6037 rashly and negligently due to which the tractor turned turtle. Deceased Rakshpal- singh came under the tractor and died due to the injuries sustained by him. An F.I.R. was lodged by the father of the deceased Rakshpalsingh, named, Jogendrasingh in which it is mentioned that the deceased Rakshpalsingh was driving the tractor. ( 3. ) The claimants tried to adduce evidence that Rakshpalsingh was not driving the tractor. ( 4. ) The Claims Tribunal after appreciating the evidence found that Harijinder Singh was not driving the tractor and it was Rakshpalsingh who was driving the tractor and since the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of Rakshpalsingh, hence the claimants are not entitled for any compensation. This finding is arrived at by the Claims Tribunal on the basis of F.I.R. which is lodged by Jogendrasingh, appellant No. 1 since dead, in which it is clearly mentioned that Rakshpalsingh was driving the tractor at the time of the accident. ( 5. ) As the Claims Tribunal came to the conclusion that Rakshpalsingh was driving the vehicle and the accident has occurred due to his rash and negligent driving, the claim petition was dismissed and order is passed for refund of the amount of compensation of Rs. 50,000 received by the claimants towards no fault liability. ( 6. ) Mr. B.N. Malhotra, learned counsel for the respondent insurance company has raised a plea that the present appellants have not complied with the condition of depositing the amount as provided under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act and, therefore, the appeal is not maintainable. In support of his contention, he has relied upon a judgment of this court in the case of United India Insurance Co. In support of his contention, he has relied upon a judgment of this court in the case of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Ajeet Kumar Jain, M.A. No. 886 of 2004; decided on 5.9.2005 at Gwalior wherein this court has dismissed the appeal on the ground that the appellant has not deposited the amount as required under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act. For that purpose, this court has relied upon the judgment of this court in the cases of Anil Saraf v. Namboodas, 1997 ACJ 1411 (MP); S. Venkata Subbaiah v. Kodavali Chinnappa, 2003 ACJ 308 (AP) and Ashok Kohli v. Prakash Chand, 1996 ACJ 416 (MP). ( 7. ) Learned counsel for the appellants- claimants contended that the amount is deposited by them after raising of objection by the insurance company and delay in depositing the amount deserves to be condoned. ( 8. ) This court in the case of Ajeet Kumar Jain, M.A. No. 886 of 2004; decided on 5.9.2005, has laid down that the amount is to be deposited along with the appeal and subsequent deposit of the amount will not cure the defect. In view of the aforesaid judgment, we hold that the present appeal is not maintainable and is hereby dismissed. Appeal dismissed.