c^rA^ IN THE HQN'BLE mGH,Q3JRT_OF eHHALTJSGARH AT BILASPUR. Misc. ^ipeal No. 1^s of 20oiy ^PPELLAIT 'CLfWMT Qivlsi&^ BenGli ; / Smt. HemlataWife of Shri M.S.Markam, aged about 31 years, resident of New Police Line, Durg (C.G«). VERSUS / HESPONDENTS .NON-^eUCjWTS ..^ .-'•^^- ^AS^y '^•..•••'wy-'^ji'''' /•^£^ .^•l»'<i^5" ^^y v^/ .l^- Hemlal son of Mandalram Kenwat aged 30 years, resldent of Maehgaon, Police Statlon Gandai District Rajnandgaon (C.G.^Drivercj^ Truck No. M.B.T./8587 '| 2.' Harvindar Singh son of Baldev Singh Bhatia, aged 25 years, Resident of 35 Malviya Nagar, Durg, Police Station Mohan Nagar, IXirg (C.G.) ^xiKSX. Truck DrivBJr| ^3-. Divisional Manager, The Oriental Insurance Company \ Limited, Malviya Nagar, Sta-tioni Road, Durg, G.E. Road.Durg i(C.G.) APPEA UNDER SECTIQsIlTO OF MOTOR VEHICLES .flCT 1988.- c^ y/f""v% 'l8,.: ', "a ;i^KiBi!iJ ;?j .. :• •••..;^^^ 'SI HIGH COURT OF CHHAmSGARH AT BILASPUR €^' s^ h i APPELLANT RESPONDENTS M.A. No.13/2004 Smt. Hemlata Versus Hemlal and others DB:- HON'BLE SHRI I.M. QUDDUSI & HON'BLE SHRI N.K. AGARWAL, JJ PRESENT:- Shri Pankaj Agrawal, Advocate for the appellant. Shri V.K. Pandey, Adv. for the respondent No. 1. Shri C.D. Sharma, Adv. for the respondent No. 3. ORAL ORDER (27-8-2010) PejrI.M. Quddusi. J 1. This appeal has been filed against the impugned order dated 20-9-2003 passed by the IInd Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Diu-g passed m Claim Case No. 57/2Q01 dismissing the claim case for non-prosecution under Order 17 Rule 2 of Code of Civil Procedure. 2. Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is reproduced below:- "173. Appeals. (1) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (2) i any person aggrieved by an award of a Claims Tribunal may, within ninety days from the date of the award, prefer an appeal to the High Court: Provided that no appeal by the person who is required to pay any amount in terms of such award shall be entertained by the High Court unless he has deposited with if twenty-five thousand rupees or fifty per cent, of the ainount so awarded, whichever is less, in the manner directed by the High Court: Provided further that the High Court naay entertain the appeal after the expiiy of the said period of ninety days, if it is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from preferring the appeal in tirue. (2) No appeal shall lie against any award of a ^i^'"'^^ "h''s^fi £^-\ '? ^s's J: ...;...„.. Claiins Tribunal if the amount in dispute in the appeal is less than ten thousand rupees." 3. A bare perusal of the above quoted provisions shows that an appeal can be filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act against an award of the clainis tribunal but in the instant case, there is no award and only the claim petition has been dismissed under Order 17 Rule 2 of C.P.C. therefore, this appeal is notmaintainable. Hence the saine is dismissed with liberty to the appellant to move appropriate application before the Claims Tribunal for restoration of the claim. petition. Sd/- I-M.Quddusi Judge Sd/- N.K.Agarwal Judge i l.n