NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD Vs. GUDDI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These appeals are filed by the insurance company against the common order passed by the learned single Judge in Misc. Appeal No. 138 of 1996 and Misc. Appeal No. 139 of 1996.

(2.) Appellant insurance company has filed appeals against the award passed by II Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Gwalior, challenging therein that the insurance company is not liable to pay compensation as the driver of the vehicle did not possess driving licence. Cross-objection under Order 41, rule 22, Code of Civil Procedure was filed by the claimants. The learned single Judge dismissed the appeal, but allowed the cross-objection and enhanced the quantum of compensation. Yearly income of the deceased was assessed at Rs. 6,000 and after deducting '/3rd amount, dependency was assessed at Rs. 4,000 per year and applying the multiplier of 16 compensation was enhanced to Rs. 64,000 with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum.

(3.) Only contention raised by the counsel for the appellant that in an appeal under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') there is no scope for cross-objection under Order 41, rule 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code'). In support of his contention, counsel for appellant has relied upon the judgment of single Bench of this court in the case of Vaidyanath Singh v. Gulabkali, 1997 ACJ 428 (MP). In this case, it is held that the provisions of Order 41, rule 22 of the Code have not been made applicable to the Act, therefore, cross-objection is not tenable. He further referred to the judgment of Madras High Court in the case of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Rajammal, 1993 ACJ 486 (Madras). In that case, it has been considered that the appeal filed by the insurance company was limited to the question of its liability and the insurance company in that appeal had neither questioned the finding regarding negligence nor the quantum of compensation. It was held that in such appeal, cross-objection by claimants for enhancement of compensation is not admissible.