FAO No. 2952 of 2009 -1- In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh C. M. No. 14326/CII of 2009 and FAO No. 2952 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision : 7.4.2010 Sabbir Khan and others ... Appellants vs Smt. Sunita and others .... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. J. P. Sharma, Advocate, for the appellants. Mr. Neeraj Khanna, Advocate, for respondent no. 3. Rajesh Bindal J. The appeal has been filed by the owners of the vehicle involved in the accident impugning the award of the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Narnaul (hereinafter to be referred as “the Tribunal”) whereby the liability of claim was put on the appellants as well as the insurance company. Briefly the facts are that on 23.11.2007, Lakhmi Chand along with Satish Kumar was going to his place of work on a motorcycle No. HR-35C-6828. On the way, the motorcycle was struck by a Tractor-trolley bearing No. RJ-02-RA- 4633, driven by Sabbir Khan in a rash and negligent manner. Due to the impact of accident, Lakhmi Chand sustained injuries and later on succumbed to his injuries. The claimants filed petition before the learned Tribunal which was allowed. The appellants and the insurance company were held liable to satisfy the award jointly and severally. The insurance company was directed to first satisfy the award and thereafter recover the amount from the appellants. It is this finding which is impugned in the present appeal by the appellants. Along with the appeal, an application for exemption from depositing Rs. 25,000/- was also filed. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that he had informed his clients for deposit of the amount but they have refused to deposit the same. 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 FAO No. 2952 of 2009 -2- 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 appellants cannot claim exemption from making the requisite deposit. The learned counsel for the appellants had stated that applicants/appellants refused to deposit the requisite amount. In the absence of deposit the appeal cannot be entertained. Accordingly, the application as well as the appeal are dismissed. 7.4.2010 ( Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge