UNITED INSURANCE CO LTD Vs. HARBHAJAN LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has already been decided by this court earlier but the cross objection was not decided as Mr. Keshote prayed for time to study a particular point of law which was raised during the arguments in that case.

(2.) IT is on account of the above that this appeal has again been listed. Since the cross -objection only remains, I would like to decide the cross -objection. Now in the cross -objection Mr. Keshote has prayed that the Oriental Fire General Insurance Company, Jaipur as well as the owner and the driver of the truck No. HRR 6575 made jointly and severally liable for the payment of the amount of Rs. 55,000/ - to the respondents Nos. 1 to 5 and the order of the Tribunal to that extent exhonerating them should be quashed. An objection has been raised by the insurance company that the appeal has been filed only by United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and in the cross -objection the prayer is that the Oriental Fire and General Insurance Co. as well as the owner of the driver of the truck should be made liable. The objection is that these persons neither filed the appeal nor any appeal has been filed against them, therefore, the scope of the cross -objection cannot be varying the controversy against co -respondents. Mr. Keshote took time to study this point on the last hearing when the case was decided. It was observed in the judgment that 'so far as the cross -objection against respondent No. 12 Oriental Fire and General Insurance Co. is concerned Srivastava submits that since the Tribunal rejected the claim against his company and no appeal has been filed, the claimants cannot be allowed to file cross -objections against his insurance company. This matter of cross -objection with regard to its maintainability and the rights would be decided separately as Mr. Keshote wants to study the legal position in this respect.' Obviously the cross -objection can be only against the appellant and since the appeal has not been filed by the Oriental Fire and General Insurance Company or the owner or driver of the Truck, vehicle, therefore there cannot be any cross -objections against them. In this view of the matter cross objections cannot be accepted. The case has already been remanded to the Tribunal and whatever directions have been given regarding the remand in the order of this Court within that if any advantage can be taken by any of the parties legally, then it would be open to them to agitate those matters there. Beyond the scope of the directions given in the judgment dated 23 -9 -1985 regarding the remand, no new point can be canvassed.