1. On 15th November, 2001, claim petition was filed under section 140/166 Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short Act of 1988) on the ground that one Sudeer Kumar died because of rash and negligent driving of the driver of the vehicle of the appellant. The facts appearing from the impugned order would show that on 29.12.2001, appellant was summoned to appear and contest the petition. Mr. Eja/Ahmad, Advocate appeared and sought time for filing objections, Case was adjourned on 02.02.2002, on that date again adjournment was sought to file the objections. While allowing the prayer of the learned counsel for the appellant, case was posted for 22nd March, 2002, on that date again time was sought for filing objections which was extended up to 28th May, 2002, on the said date nobody appeared on behalf of the appellant and the Tribunal while awaiting the appearance of the appellant, adjourned the claim petition to 24.07.2002. On that date nobody appeared on behalf of the appellant and again the case was posted on 10th August, 2002. On the said date nobody appeared on behalf of the appellant and the Tribunal initiated ex-parte proceedings against the appellant. 2. Award was passed by the Tribunal in favour of the claimants. Application was filed by the appellant before the Tribunal seeking setting aside of the ex-parte Award. This application was dismissed by the Tribunal. Feeling aggrieved, Appeal has been filed against the said order dated 28th July, 2003. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that learned counsel had not informed the appellant-Corporation about the proceedings of the case. 4. No affidavit of counsel has been filed in support of the application or even in the Appeal. The appellant exhibited casual approach in defending the claim petition. Negligence of the appellant-Corporation is writ large on the face of the record. Appellant has failed to make out the case for setting aside the award. 5. The Appeal otherwise is not maintainable, inasmuch as, under the Act of 1988, Appeal under section 173 can be filed against the award. There is no provision contained in the Act of 1988 which provide for filing of the Appeal against the order which is impugned in this Appeal. Appeal being creature of the statute can be filed only when statute permits for filing the same and against the orders which are mentioned in the Appeal provision. There is no provision contained in the Act of 1988 which provide for filing of the Appeal against the order which is impugned in this Appeal. Appeal being creature of the statute can be filed only when statute permits for filing the same and against the orders which are mentioned in the Appeal provision. This Appeal on this score is held to be not maintainable. 6. For the above sated reasons, this Appeal alongwith the connected CMA(s) is dismissed. 7. The amount deposited with the Registry be released in favour of the respondents-claimants strictly in terms and conditions of the award alongwith the interest which accrued on it, and on their proper identification. 8. Dismissed alongwith connected CMA(s).