ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. Vs. MINI KUNJUMANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment and award in O.P.(MV) No. 1021/2008 dated 16.11.2010 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ernakulam. The 4th respondent in the claim petition, who is the insurer of the offending vehicle involved in the accident which led to the filing of the claim petition, is the appellant herein. The respondents herein were the claimants therein. The respondents had filed the claim petition under S. 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation for the death of Sri Kunjumani, who is the husband of the 1st respondent, the father of respondents 2 and 3 and the son of respondents 4 and 5, on 26.4.2008 pursuant to an accident occurred on that day. The claim was for Rs. 17,00,000/-. No oral evidence was adduced by both sides before the Tribunal and on the side of the respondents, there was no documentary evidence, as well. The respondents, who are the claimants therein got marked Exts. A1 to A10, on their side. The Tribunal had evaluated the evidence on record and appreciated the rival contentions and passed the impugned award for a total compensation of Rs. 5,85,000/- with interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of petition till realisation. The insurer, the 4th respondent filed the captioned appeal mainly raising, inter alia, the following grounds.

(2.) The above appeal was admitted by this Court on 15.7.2011. Though the respondents entered appearance on receiving notice, they had not filed any independent appeal against the judgment and award in question. It is to be noted that long later, viz.; with an inordinate delay of 1736 days, they filed a cross objection under Order XLI Rule 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The application filed to condone the delay as C.M. Application No. 1374/2017 in C.O. No. 57/2017 in the captioned appeal, is yet to be condoned.

(3.) While the learned counsel appearing for the appellant contends that the impugned award invites interference on the grounds specifically mentioned hereinbefore, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents contends that in the interest of justice, cross objection filed by the respondents is liable to be allowed and the quantum of compensation is also liable to be enhanced in the interest of justice, after condoning the delay of 1736 days.