T BALAIAH Vs. ABDUL MAJEED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) loss of future earnings; Rs. 14,000.00towards compensation for bulls and cart; Rs. 1,000.00 towards damages to clothing and watch; Rs. 4,000.00 for extra nourishment; Rs. 500.00 towards transport to hospital and Rs. 1,500.00 towards loss of past earnings. The RTC opposed the claim saying that in the bullock cart, a crane of heavy weight was being carried, projecting its length beyond the cart, that when the bus was passing the cart, the bulls got scared and pulled the cart towards left and that consequently, the crane fell across and came into contact with the left portion of the bus and the bullock cart capsized on account of the heavy weight of the crane and that there is no negligence on the part of the driver of the RTC. The amount of compensation was also challenged as excessive.

(2.) The Tribunal found that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving by the driver. Regarding compensation, the Tribunal awarded Rs. 5,000.00i.e., Rs. 2.000.00towards cost of one bull, Rs. 1,500.00 towards damages to cart and Rs. 1,500/ - towards pain and suffering, and after deducting Rs. 1,800.00paid by the driver to the appellant a few days after the accident, fixed compensation at Rs. 3,200.00. The Tribunal granted interest at 9 per cent per annum from the date of petition. The appellant has filed this appeal claiming further compensation of Rupees 45,000/- while the RTC did not prefer any appeal.

(3.) Sri C. Venkata Krishna, the learned counsel for the respondent opposed the appeal contending that the driver of the RTC has not driven the bus negligently or rashly and that the RTC is not liable to pay compensation and that though it has not preferred appeal, the RTC is entitled to support the order of the Tribunal under Order 41, Rule 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure on any ground decided against it. I agree with his contention. It is well settled that the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure as far as may be applicable apply to the appeals under the Motor Vehicles Act. For example, it was held by this Court in Govt. of A.P. v. Padma Rani, 1975 (1) APLJ 258: AIR 1976 AP 122 that the cross objections are maintainable. Hence, under Order 41, Rule 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the RTC is entitled to challenge the finding of the Tribunal regarding rash and negligent driving. But, whenever the respondent opts to invoke Order 41, Rule 22 C.P.C. it has to give notice to the appellant. However, as it has not filed appeal or cross objections, the RTC cannot challenge the award to the extent of the amount granted by the Tribunal viz., Rs. 3,200.00.