FAO No. 333 of 2010 -1- In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh C. M. No. 2070/CII of 2010 and FAO No. 333 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision : 10.5.2010 Megh Raj ... Appellant vs M/s United India Insurance Company Limited and others .... Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. Jagat Singh, Advocate, for the appellant. Rajesh Bindal J. The appeal has been filed by the driver of the vehicle involved in the accident impugning the award of the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Faridabad (hereinafter to be referred as “the Tribunal”) whereby the liability of claim was put on the appellant and respondents no. 1 and 3. Briefly the facts are that on 3.8.1999, claimant Vijender Prakash at about 8/8.15 p.m., boarded Jeep bearing registration no. MH-04/Q-1317 at Ballabgarh. Ram Singh and Rohtash also boarded the same jeep. The driver of the jeep was driving it in a rash and negligent manner. He was asked to drive the vehicle slowly but he did not pay any attention. When the jeep reached near Mittal Brick Kiln, village Fafunda, it met with an accident. Vijender Prakash suffered injuries and he was removed to hospital where he remained under treatment. The claimant filed petition before the learned Tribunal, which was allowed. The appellant- driver and respondent no. 1- the insurance company and respondent no. 3, owner were held liable to satisfy the award jointly and severally. The insurance company was directed to first satisfy the award and was given right to recover the amount from the appellant and the owner of the offending vehicle. It is this finding which is impugned in the present appeal by the appellant. Along with the appeal, an application for exemption from depositing Rs. 25,000/- was also filed. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the award of the learned Tribunal has already been satisfied by the insurance company and it has now filed execution petition against the appellant for recovery of the amount. He submitted that since the award of the Tribunal has already been satisfied by the insurance company, the appellant be exempted from depositing Rs. 25,000/- and the appeal be heard on merits. FAO No. 333 of 2010 -2- A Division Bench of this court in Sohan Singh vs Kushla Devi and others AIR 1996 Punjab and Haryana 256, held as under:- “On a plain reading of the proviso to Section 173 (1), any person who is required to pay any amount under an award passed by the Claims Tribunal, prefers an appeal, his appeal can be entertained by the High Court only if he makes deposit of a specific amount as required by the said proviso and he cannot claim exemption from making the deposit on the ground that a co-respondent before the Tribunal has filed an appeal and has made the requisite deposit. It is a different thing that the High Court will not order the disbursement of the entire amount deposited by different parties under the proviso to Section 173 (1).” In view of the proviso to Section 173 (1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, the appellant cannot claim exemption from making the requisite pre-deposit. In the absence of deposit the appeal cannot be entertained. Accordingly, the application as well as the appeal are dismissed. 10.5.2010 ( Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge