LAWS(SC)-2006-2-17

ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LTD Vs. R SWAMINATHAN

Decided On February 14, 2006
ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. Appellant
V/S
R.SWAMINATHAN Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant is an insurance company which is aggrieved by the impugned judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court rendered in a Letters Patent Appeal.

(2.) THE respondent No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as 'the claimant') suffered an accident while travelling as a passenger in the bus of respondent No. 3, which met with an accident with another bus insured with the appellant insurance company. As a result of the said accident, there were serious injuries sustained by the claimant resulting in amputation of the right hand. Claimant filed a claim before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal'), Namakkal and claimed compensation of Rs. 10,00,000.00 alleging negligence on the part of drivers of both the buses. THE Tribunal made an award of compensation of Rs. 4,50,000.00 under the following heads: <FRM>JUDGEMENT_1398_ACJ_2006Html1.htm</FRM>

(3.) TO say the least, this was a very facile way of interfering with the award when no interference was called for. We called upon the learned counsel on both sides to show us at least one case (out of the catena of judgments referred to in the impugned judgment) in support of this proposition. The learned counsel frankly confessed that there was none. On the other hand, learned counsel for the appellant drew our attention to the judgment of this court in Banarsi v. Ram Phal, (2003) 9 SCC 606, which supports the proposition that an appeal filed by the defendant laying challenge to the grant of a smaller relief, the plaintiff as a respondent cannot seek a higher relief if he had not filed an appeal on his own or had not taken any cross-objection. In the present appeal it would appear that claimant neither appealed against the award of compensation passed by the Tribunal, nor filed any cross-objection in the first appeal filed by the insurance company. Thus, we are satisfied that the Division Bench of the High Court wholly erred in increasing the compensation amount beyond the amount awarded by the Tribunal in the appeal filed by the insurance company (Sic. claimant).