The New India Assurance Co., Ltd vs Naveen S/O Basavaraj Nellikoppa
2022 Latest Caselaw 9061 Kant

                        1




        IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
                DHARWAD BENCH

      DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF JUNE, 2022

                     BEFORE

 THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR

            M.F.A.NO.22654/2011 (MV-I)

BETWEEN

THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO., LTD.,
KHAJA HOUSE, OPP: KSB PUMPS,
KUMBAI PUNE ROAD, PIMPRI,
BY ITS REGIONAL MANAGER,
MOTOR-III, PARTY HUB,
SRINATH COMPLEX,
NEW COTTON MARKET, HUBLI-580 029.
                                         ...APPELLANT
(BY SRI RAVI G. SABHAHIT, ADVOCATE)

AND

1.    NAVEEN S/O BASAVARAJ NELLIKOPPA,
      AGED:22 YEARS, OCC:STUDENT,
      R/O BASAVESHWAR NAGAR, HAVERI.

2.    S. S. SHARMA,
      8/3 YANUKA BUILDING,
      SIDDIVINAYAKA PRASTHA PRADHIKARAN,
      NIGOL, DIST:PUNE, STATE:MAHARASHTRA.

                                   ...RESPONDENTS
(NOTICE TO RESPONDENT NO.1-SERVED)
(SERVICE OF NOTICE TO RESPONDENT NO.2-HELD
SUFFICIENT)

    THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED
UNDER SECTION 173 (1) OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT
                                  2




PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND AWARD
PASSED BY DISTRICT JUDGE, M.A.C.T., (FAST TRACK
COURT)    AT-HAVERI  IN   MVC.NO.121/2009   (Old
MVC.No.90/2006) DATED 05.06.2010 AND FURTHER BE
PLEASED TO DISMISS THE CLAIM PETITION AGAINST
THIS APPELLANT.

     THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

                              JUDGMENT

This appeal is preferred by the Insurance

Company challenging the Judgment and Award passed

by the District Judge, M.A.C.T., (Fast Track Court),

Haveri (for short 'the Tribunal') in MVC.No.121/2009

(Old MVC.No.90/2006 dated 05.06.2010

2. The appeal preferred by the Insurance

Company is against the Judgment, Award and

compensation of Rs.8,000/- granted by the Tribunal

with interest at the rate of 6% per annum. Though,

respondent Nos.1 and 2 are served but they have not

represented. However, be that as it may, the point for

consideration to entertain the appeal would be

primarily, whether the appeal preferred by the

Insurance Company is maintainable.

3. Section 173(2) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for

short, 'the Act') prior to the amendment reads as under:

"No appeal shall lie against any award of a Claims Tribunal if the amount in dispute in the appeal is less than ten thousand rupees."

4. It is not in dispute that the amount of

compensation awarded by the Tribunal is Rs.8,000/-,

therefore, the subject matter of the appeal or award of

compensation to the claimant by the Tribunal is

Rs.8,000/- which is not disputed and so also it cannot

be disputed as it is borne by the records of the

impugned order. Section 173(2) of the Act very clearly

states that no appeal shall lie against any award if the

amount in dispute in the appeal is lesser than

Rs.10,000/- prior to the amendment on 01.04.2022,

which is enhanced to Rs.1,00,000/-. However, appeal

having been filed prior to the amendment and amount

in dispute being only Rs.8,000/- which is lesser than

Rs.10,000/- as prescribed upper limit of Section 173(2)

of the Act. The appeal preferred by the Insurance

Company would not be maintainable for consideration

before this Court. Therefore, in view of bar under

Section 173(2) of the Act, appeal is dismissed.

In view of dismissal of appeal pending application,

if any pales into in significance and is consigned to

records.

SD JUDGE ckk