JUDGMENT : DHARAM CHAND CHAUDHARY, J. 1. This judgment shall dispose of all the above appeals, arising out of common award dated 01.10.2016 and involving similar question of law and facts, passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kinnaur at Rampur Bushahar, Distt. Shimla (H.P.), in MAC Petition No.0100022 of 2011. The appellant in these appeals was respondent No.2 (driver of offending vehicle) before learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. As per the impugned award, he alongwith Sh. Bhagat Singh, respondent No.1 before the Tribunal below, were jointly and severally held liable to indemnify the award alongwith interest @ 7.5 % per annum. 2. In these appeals, the following order was passed on 10.01.2018:- "Since the depositing of statutory amount is a condition precedent for filing an appeal against the award passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, therefore, learned counsel representing the appellant seeks time to have instruction in this matter. Allowed. List on 22nd March, 2018." 3. Mr. Parmod Negi, Advocate, learned counsel, submits that the appellant is not in a position to deposit the statutory amount, i.e. Rs.25,000/-, as required to be deposited under the first Proviso to sub section (1) of Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act in short). Since the deposit of the statutory amount is a condition precedent for entertaining an appeal against an award passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in terms of first proviso below sub section (1) of Section 173 of the Act, therefore, for want of such amount the appeal cannot be entertained. It is held so by a Division Bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court in Abhilasha Bai versus Arvind Kumar & Others, 2002(3) T.A.C.94 (M.P.). The relevant Para-9 of this judgment, reads as follows:- "9. Shri Divesh Jain for respondents 1 and 2 submits that he is aggrieved by the award of the Claims Tribunal since it holds them liable for payment of compensation. That being so, he can file cross-objections and requirement of Section 173 of the Act would not be applicable when he is not filing an appeal, but coming to the Court through the cross-objections. Giving our consideration to the submissions so raised we are of the opinion that owner and driver are 'persons aggrieved' by the award in this case. That being so, he can file cross-objections and requirement of Section 173 of the Act would not be applicable when he is not filing an appeal, but coming to the Court through the cross-objections. Giving our consideration to the submissions so raised we are of the opinion that owner and driver are 'persons aggrieved' by the award in this case. Therefore, any aggrieved person(s) challenging such an award must fulfill the requirement of depositing the mandatory amount provided in the first proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 173 of the Act. Order XLI, Rule 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure has to be read alongwith Section 173 of the Act. Therefore, cross-objections is an appeal within the meaning of Section 173 of the Act. It survives for consideration even if the appeal filed by the appellant is withdrawn or dismissed for any reason. Consequently, the objection is sustained and in the absence of mandatory deposit, the cross-objections are not maintainable, therefore, dismissed." 4. Therefore, the appeals being not maintainable are accordingly dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.