RAFIQ, J.—This is a classic example as to how indiscriminately and mechanically, various insurance companies are filing appeals against the awards of the Motor Accident Claims Tribu-nals against granting petty amount of compensation. In the present case, total sum that was award to the respondent is Rs.7,000/-. The award was passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Beawar on 7/8/1999. The appeal was preferred on 15/11/1999. The appeal was admitted on 13/9/2000 and notices were issued. Since then, the appeal has remained pending before this Court for more than twelve years for service on the respondents. Service on all the respondents including claimant and owner of the vehicle was affected but service upon driver respondent No.1 could not be affected. It is in this situa-tion, the matter remained pending before this court for a long time. 2. Number of appeals against the awards of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunals are filed before this court arising out of claim petitions filed u/Secs. 166 and 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Even though filing of the appeals by the claimants for enhancement of the award is understandable but filing of appeal by the Govt. owned insurance companies as well as private insurance companies and that too, in a matter awarding petty amount of compensation, as in the present case, cannot be appreciated. Number of appeals are filed against the awards involving injury cases granting compensation of less than Rs.1,00,000/-. Strangely in the present case, appeal was preferred against the award granting compensation of Rs.7,000/- granted to the claimant in an injury case. Sec. 173(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 clearly provides that no appeal shall lie against the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal if amount of compensation is less than Rs.10,000/-. It is strange then how the appeal was preferred against such award. The only justification that is given is that since the impugned award decides as many as seven claim cases by a common award, therefore filing of appeal became necessary. That fact cannot make the appeal maintainable much against the statutory bar contai-ned in Sec.173(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Number of appeals are being filed indiscriminately by the insurance companies against minimal amount of compensation and mostly even against award of compensation less than Rs.1,00,000/-. That fact cannot make the appeal maintainable much against the statutory bar contai-ned in Sec.173(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Number of appeals are being filed indiscriminately by the insurance companies against minimal amount of compensation and mostly even against award of compensation less than Rs.1,00,000/-. Even though, most of the appeals are not entertained by this court but even if entertained, decision of any such appeal after considerable length of time, may ultimately resulted into slight deduction for amount of compensation. However, the cost of litigation to the companies as well as incon-venience to the claimants inasmuch as, burden of pendency of cases on the court owing to this factor is quite enormous. Number of appeals filed by the claimants for enhancement of award of compensation and also by the insurance companies against the award on various grounds remain pending before this court for years together. Claim cases that are decided by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunals under Secs. 166 and 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 are relating to personal injuries received by the claimants. Decision of the claim cases, as it takes a considerably long time and causes lot of inconvenience, hard-ship and frustration to the claimants. If after prolonged proceedings, certain amount is awarded to the claimant by way of compensation, the insurance companies are expected to take a pragmatic view of the matter while deciding to file appeal in such matters. One can understand of filing appeal where stakes are comparatively high but filing of appeal merely because every case according to their perception, give rise to a question of law, cannot justify filing of appeal. This is all the more when so the presiding officer of the rank of District Judge has dealt with the issue and decided the claim case. 3. There are examples where policy decision has been taken by the Government for not preferring appeal where stakes involved are not significant. For instance, the Income Tax Department, as informed by the learned counsel for the respondents, has decided pursuant to the Circular dated 9/2/2011 not to file appeal against the order of assessment or otherwise, where tax effect is not more than Rs.10,00,000/-. Similar approach has been taken by Commercial Taxes Department of the Government of Rajasthan. 4. For instance, the Income Tax Department, as informed by the learned counsel for the respondents, has decided pursuant to the Circular dated 9/2/2011 not to file appeal against the order of assessment or otherwise, where tax effect is not more than Rs.10,00,000/-. Similar approach has been taken by Commercial Taxes Department of the Government of Rajasthan. 4. This Court therefore impress upon the insurance companies that despite outer limit of Rs.10,000/- contained in Section 173(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, they ought to adopt a uniform policy as to against award of what amount of compensation, they should not file appeal. At the same time, considering substantial fall in the value of rupee as compared to 1988 when the present Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 was enacted by the Parliament, there is also a case of review of the limit of Rs.10,000/- under Section 173(2), if not upto Rs.1,00,000/-, an amount of Rs.50,000/- should atleast be fixed against which the appeal should be made not maintainable. This is however a matter of legislative policy. A copy of this order should therefore be also endorsed to the Secretary Ministry of Finance, Banking Division for initiating the process by raising limit of Rs.10,000/- to Rs.50,000/-. 5. A copy of this order should also be endorsed to the Headquarters of National Insurance Company Ltd., Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., United India Insurance Company Ltd., New India Assurance Company Ltd., General Insurance Corporation of India etc.etc., which may either individually or collectively, in consultation with each other jointly frame policy as to what should be the limit of the amount against which appeal should not be filed. 6. This appeal however is dismissed with costs of Rs.10,000/-, to be deposited by the appellant-New India Assurance Co. Ltd. with the Raj. Legal Services Authority, Jaipur within a period of three months.