JUDGMENT : HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK, J. 1. The present Appeal is filed by the appellant-Insurance Company challenging the judgment and award dated 26.03.2009 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux.) Court No. 9, Ahmedabad City in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 371 of 2002, whereby the learned Tribunal partly allowed the claim petition filed by the original claimant. 2. The facts leading to the filing of the present appeal may be summarized as under: 2.1 On 17.10.2000, at about 10:00 p.m., when the claimant was returning to his home on Kinetic Honda, bearing Registration No. GJ-1-BD-3055, at that time driver of one Maruti Car, bearing Registration No. GJ-1-BK-6447, driving his vehicle in rash and negligent manner, rammed into the scooter of the claimant. As a result of which, the claimant sustained serious injuries and sustained permanent partial disability. The claimant therefore, filed the claim petition for compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/-. 2.2 The Tribunal partly allowed the claim petition filed by the claimant and thereby, awarded compensation of Rs. 90,880/- along with running interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the claim petition till realization with the proportionate costs, to be payable by the opponents. 2.3 Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the judgment and decree passed by the Tribunal, the appellant-Insurance Company has filed the present Appeal before this Court. 3. Heard Mr. Maulik J. Shelat, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, Mr. Hiren M. Modi, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 1 and Ms. Mita S. Panchal, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 2. 4. Mr. Maulik Shelat, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant-Insurance company submitted that the Tribunal has ought to have considered that there was no insurance exists on the date of accident and therefore, the appellant can not be saddled with the liability of compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act either as insurer or owner. He further submitted that the Tribunal has completely ignored the provisions of the Contract Act, Insurance and provisions of the M.V. Act, 1988 and only by relying upon Exh.50- subrogation letter as a transfer of ownership agreement, the Tribunal has materially erred in holding that the appellant become owner of the vehicle-in-question. He further submitted that the Tribunal has completely ignored the provisions of the Contract Act, Insurance and provisions of the M.V. Act, 1988 and only by relying upon Exh.50- subrogation letter as a transfer of ownership agreement, the Tribunal has materially erred in holding that the appellant become owner of the vehicle-in-question. He also submitted that the Tribunal ought to have considered all terms of the said subrogation letter and ought to have considered the principle of subrogation while deciding the claim petition. He submitted that the judgment and decree passed by the Tribunal is contrary to law and facts of the present case and therefore, the same is required to be quashed and set aside. 5. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the Record and Proceedings of the present case. The amount involved in the present appeal is only Rs. 90,880/-. The appellant has already deposited the awarded amount before the tribunal. 6. This Court in case of New India Assurance Company Limited, Divisional Office vs. Kalubhai Nanubhai Dodiya and Others, 2021 Law Suit (Guj.) 989, has held as under: “4. Though various grounds have been raised in the memo of appeal, the fact remains that the total amount involved in the appeal is only Rs. 62,100/-. Considering the smallness of amount, this Court deems it fit not to exercise jurisdiction under Section 173 of the Act. Accordingly, only on the ground of smallness of amount with a further clarification that this may not be considered as precedent in other claim petitions arising out of the same accident, the appeal is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Registry is directed to send the original record and proceedings back to the Tribunal forthwith.” 7. In view of above discussion, this Court is of the view that this is not a fit case to exercise the jurisdiction under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Accordingly, only on the ground of smallness of amount, without entering into the merits of the matter, the present appeal is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. It is open for the Insurance Company to raise appropriate case. 8. Registry is directed to send the original Record and Proceedings back to the concerned Tribunal forthwith.