IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA: FAO.No.328/2004 Date of Decision :15th July, 2008. Smt.Radha Thakur. …Appellants . Versus: Smt.Hira Devi and others. …Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge. Whether approved for Reporting?1 For the appellant: Mr.B.C.Verma, Advocate. For Respondents 2. Ms.Devyani Sharma, Advocate Sanjay Karol, J(Oral). The present appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) has been filed against the award passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Solan, District Solan H.P. in Claim Petition No. 43- S/2 of 2003 decided on 1st June, 2004. Claimant-Smt. Hira Devi filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Act claiming compensation with respect to the injury she sustained in an accident on 17th September, 2003. The vehicle belonging to the appellant herein was being driven by Sh. Dhani Ram-respondent No.3 herein. 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 Appreciating the material on record and evidence (oral and documentary), the Tribunal held the claimant entitled to a sum of Rs. 10,000/- as compensation for the injuries sustained by the claimant. The owner has filed the present appeal challenging the award. Ms.Devyani Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2 has taken a preliminary objection with regard to the maintainability of the appeal in view of the provisions of Section 173(2) of the Act wherein it is provided that no appeal shall lie if the amount in dispute is less than Rs.10,000/- Mr.Verma, learned counsel for the appellant referred to a decision rendered by this Court in Pala Ram Vs. Punjab Roadways and another, 2007 ACJ 983 to contend that since the claimant had originally claimed compensation of more than Rs.2,00,000/-, therefore, the present appeal is maintainable. In Pala Ram’s case (supra) the court was considering the appeal filed by the claimant who had claimed a sum of Rs. 73,000/- but was awarded only a sum of Rs.7,000/- by the tribunal. The claimant was seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded and, therefore, in this context the court came to the conclusion that the amount in dispute was more than Rs.10,000/-. The facts of the present case are different. Here the claimant has not filed any appeal or cross objection for enhancement. The owner has 3 come up in appeal. Therefore, the ratio of law laid down by this court in Pala Ram’s case (supra) is not applicable. The Act is a beneficial legislation and the provisions of the statute have to be construed so as to subserve the object and the purpose of the legislation. The expression of “less than Rs.10,000/-“ would encompass the amount of Rs.10,000/- also. The intent is to curtail/avoid litigation with respect to small amounts of compensation awarded. Therefore, the present appeal is not maintainable and as such it is dismissed with no order as to cost. (Sanjay Karol), Judge. July 15, 2008(R)