INTRODUCTION
The High Court of Bombay passed a judgement on 12 June 2023. In the case of RELIANCE GENERAL INSURANCE COM. LD. Vs SHRI. INTAJ MAINUDDIN SHAIKH AND ANR. IN FIRST APPEAL NO. 1285 OF 2022 which was passed by a single bench comprising of HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE ABHAY AHUJA, an appeal challenging an order passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mumbai, came under scrutiny. The appeal centered around a claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, seeking compensation for injuries sustained in an accident. Additionally, an application was made under Section 140 of the Act for compensation under the Principle of No-Fault Liability. The Tribunal allowed the application and directed the opposing party and the insurance company to pay an interim compensation of Rs. 25,000 to the claimant. However, the insurance company filed an appeal against this order, claiming that the appeal was not maintainable as the amount involved was below the threshold prescribed by Section 173(2) of the Act.
BACKGROUND
The respondents in the appeal had filed a claim petition seeking compensation for injuries suffered in an accident. They also filed an application under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicle Act, requesting compensation under the Principle of No-Fault Liability. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mumbai, allowed the application and directed the opposing party and the insurance company to pay an interim compensation of Rs. 25,000 to the claimant. Dissatisfied with this decision, the insurance company filed an appeal challenging the order.
THRESHOLD AMOUNT REQUIREMENT
The appellant’s counsel argued that the appeal was not maintainable as the amount involved in the dispute was below the threshold prescribed by Section 173(2) of the Motor Vehicle Act. Section 173(2) states that no appeal shall lie against any award of a Claims Tribunal if the amount in dispute in the appeal is less than one lakh rupees. The counsel for the respondents relied on a decision of the Nagpur Bench of the Court in the case of Madhav Vs. Mohd. Ali and Ors. First Appeal No. 521 of 2022 dated 21 October 2022, where it was held that appeals with amounts below the prescribed threshold were not maintainable.
LEGAL ANALYSIS
To understand the decision, it is important to consider the relevant provisions of the Motor Vehicle Act:
- Section 140: This section allows for the payment of compensation under the Principle of No Fault Liability. It enables the claimant to seek compensation without establishing fault or negligence on the part of the opposing party.
- Section 166: This section pertains to the filing of a claim petition for compensation for injuries or damages arising from a motor vehicle accident. It provides the legal framework for adjudicating claims by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal.
- Section 173: This section deals with the right to appeal against an award of a Claims Tribunal. Subsection (1) allows for the filing of an appeal within ninety days from the date of the award. However, subsection (2) sets a threshold amount, stating that no appeal shall lie if the amount in dispute is less than one lakh rupees.
COURT’S ANALYSIS AND DECISION
After considering the arguments presented by both parties, the Court examined Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act. It observed that subsection (1) allows the filing of an appeal against an award of a Claims Tribunal, subject to the provisions of subsection (2). Subsection (2) states that no appeal shall lie if the amount in dispute is less than one lakh rupees. The Court further noted that the threshold amount was enhanced to one lakh rupees from 1st September 2019.
In this case, the impugned order was dated 26th September 2019, and the amount involved in the appeal was Rs. 25,000. Therefore, applying the amended provision, the Court held that the appeal did not meet the threshold amount required for maintainability.
The Court referred to the decision in Madhav Vs. Mohd. Ali and Ors. and concluded that an award passed under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicle Act is also subject to the threshold requirement of Section 173(2). Thus, unless the amount involved in the dispute is at least one lakh rupees, no appeal is maintainable under this provision.
The Court dismissed the appeal as not maintainable and granted liberty to the appellant to raise the grounds presented in the appeal during the proceedings before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal.
CONCLUSION
The judgment emphasizes the significance of the threshold amount requirement in appeals filed against awards of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. It clarifies that unless the amount in dispute meets the prescribed threshold, no appeal can be maintained under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act. This decision serves as a reminder to litigants and legal practitioners to consider the statutory provisions carefully before initiating an appeal in motor accident claims cases.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
JUDGEMENT REVIEWED BY VETHIKA D PORWAL, BMS COLLEGE OF LAW
