Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
The Oriental Insurance Co Ltd vs Lakamsaani Krishna on 8 September, 2025
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI
MAIN CASE No: M.A.C.M.A.(Sr) No.8631 of 2024
PROCEEDING SHEET
Sl.
OFFICE
No. DATE ORDER
NOTE
04 08.09.2025 CGR,J
Present appeal is filed by Insurer assailing the
judgment dated 24.04.2023 of the Motor Vehicle
Accidents Claims Tribunal - cum - I Additional District
Judge, West Godavari, Eluru, in M.V.O.P. No.317 of
2016, by which a compensation of ₹80,000/- was
awarded along with interest @7.5% per annum from the
date of institution of petition till realization.
For the purpose of present appeal, the amount in
dispute is valued as ₹1,28,000/-, which includes principal
amount of compensation and also interest awarded
thereon.
Office has taken objection on entertainability of
appeal, stating that the principal amount of compensation
awarded being ₹80,000/-, which is less than one lakh and
in view of bar contained in sub-section (2) of Section 173
of M.V. Act, no appeal could be entertained if value of
appeal is less than one lakh.
Learned counsel appearing for appellant - Insurer
has resubmitted the appeal offering explanation. In the
explanation offered, it has been stated that the value of
dispute in appeal should be considered rather than the
claim made before Tribunal, therefore, inasmuch as value
of present appeal being above the monetary limit of one
2
lakh, there would be no bar to entertain the appeal. In
order to appreciate aforesaid submission, it is apt to refer
Section 173 of M.V. Act, which reads as under:
"173. Appeals.-- (1) Subject to the provisions of sub-
section (2), 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 it twenty-five thousand rupees or fifty
per cent of the amount so awarded, whichever is
less, in the manner directed by the High Court:
Provided further that the High Court may entertain
the appeal after the expiry of the said period of ninety
days, if it is satisfied that the appellant was prevented
by sufficient cause from preferring the appeal in time.
(2) 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 embargo under Section 173(2) for not
entertaining appeal is that the amount in dispute in appeal
should not be less than one lakh. The language
employed above goes to show that in order to apply bar
in entertaining appeal the amount in dispute has to be
assessed qua the appeal, but not one that has been
claimed before Tribunal. Learned counsel for appellant
has brought to the notice of this Court following
judgments:
1.Judgment of this Court in Manager, United India Insurance Co.Ltd., Karimnagar v. Gandelli Yellamma and ors. [1997 (4) ALD 787].
2. Judgment of this Court in Abeda Begum and others v. Rajput Anasuya Bai [2007 (3) ALD 488].
33. Judgment of High Court of Madhya Pradesh in Sangeeta Namdev and another v. Indrapath @ Munna Yadav and others. [2023 SCC OnLine MP 6908].
In Gandelli Yellamma's case, Court was considering appeal which was below monetary limit, however, as appellant therein canvassed that the appeal challenges liability but not the quantum of compensation and bar under Section 173(2) applied only to cases disputing quantum but not liability, the said submission came to be negatived by holding that there is no distinction between the appeals challenging liability and one challenging the quantum of compensation. Since in that particular case, the value of appeal admittedly was less than the monetary limit, the same would have any relevance to the facts of the present case.
In Sangeeta Namdev's case, High Court of Madhya Pradesh dealt with more or less similar situation and has taken a view that the amount in dispute in the appeal has to be considered for the purpose of testing whether the appeal under consideration is barred under Section 173(2) of MV Act.
In Abeda Begum's case, this Court was considering A.P. Court Fee and Suits Valuation Act, 1956, in specific Explanations 3 and 4 to Section 49, for the purpose of valuation of appeal, in the said context, this Court has held that for the purpose of valuing the appeal, one has to consider the decree in entirety including the interest awarded, which ultimately would be 4 one in dispute in appeal.
Considering the language employed in sub-section (2) of Section 173 and also the judgments referred to above which have dealt with interpretation of said provision, there cannot be any ambiguity or two opinions for the purpose of entertaining appeal under Section 173(1). The amount in dispute in the appeal has to be considered. When the amount of compensation awarded and also interest thereon has been challenged in the appeal, both have to be reckoned for the purpose of assessing the amount in dispute. On doing so, if the amount in dispute in the appeal exceeds the ceiling monetary limit of one lakh, bar prescribed under Section 173(2) of MV Act would not apply, thereby, the appeal definitely be maintainable.
Accordingly, the office objections raised are rejected and Registry is directed to number the appeal if it is otherwise in order.
______ CGR,J SS