L.N. Chhangani, J.
1. This is an appeal by the Motor Owners Insurance Company Ltd. against the award given by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jodhpur (District Judge, Jodhpur) dated 14-4-67 under which the appellant and Safikhan and Safi-mohammad Khan, driver and owner of the truck No. RJQ 3802, have been directed to pay Rs. 7,413.75 P. to respondent Mangilal on account of injury caused to Mangilal by an accident on account of negligent driving of the truck. Safikhan and Safimohammad Khan, the driver and the owner of the truck, have not challenged the award. Only the Insurance Company filed the present appeal through his counsel late Shri Amrit Raj Mehta, Advocate.
2. A preliminary objection has been raised on behalf of the respondent that the appeal is barred by limitation and cannot be maintained. The relevant dates for deciding the period of limitation are as follows :--
The award was made on 14-4-67. The appeal was presented on 16-7-67. . The intervening period is 103 days. The appellant applied for the copy of the award on 25-5-67 and obtained the copy of the award on 31-5-67. The period taken is 6 to 7 days. The appeal is thus barred by 6 days or 7 days. On the office report that the appeal is barred by limitation, the advocate for the appellant took a plea that he submitted separate applications for judgment and decree and is entitled to claim deduction for both the periods. On this plea the appeal was admitted.
3. I have heard the Advocates for the parties and gone through the relevant provisions of law. Sections 110B and HOD of the Motor Vehicles Act do not contemplate a decree, but only contemplate an award and an appeal against the award and not an appeal against a decree following an award. The plea on which the appellant succeeded in getting the appeal admitted is wholly untenable. It may further be added that what has been described by the appellant's advocate as a copy of the decree, is not in fact a copy of the decree, but is only a copy of memo of costs prepared after the award. Filing of copy of such memo of costs with the appeal is not legally required and there is no provision of law under which time required for obtaining the copy of such memo of costs can be deducted. In this view of the matter the appeal is clearly barred by time and cannot be heard on merits.
The appeal is dismissed. Looking to the circumstances of the case the parties are left to bear their own costs.