MOTILAL B. NAIK, J.

( 1 ) THIS appeal and the cross-objections arise out of an award made in OP No. 74 of 1997 dated 10-4-1998 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-District Judge, Nellore (for short the Tribunal ). Since the appeal and the cross-objections arise out of the same award made in OP No. 74 of 1997, they are being disposed of by the following common order.

( 2 ) APPELLANT in CMA No. 1343 of 1998 is the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation has chosen to assail the award passed by the Tribunal in OP No. 74 of 1997 granting a total compensation of Rs. 7,14,560. 00 to the respondents/claimants with interest at 12% per annum from the date of the petition till the date of realisation. The respondents-claimants have also filed cross-objections in this appeal being dissatisfied with the compensation of Rs. 7,14,560. 00 granted by the Tribunal below as against their total claim of Rs. 10,08,000. 00for the death of Bassetty Surendra Bhaskar on 2-8-1993 in a motor accident.

( 3 ) WHEN the appeal and cross-objections are taken up for consideration, a preliminary objection is raised by Sri A. V, Sivaiah, Counsel representing the appellant-Corporation with regard to the maintainability of the cross-objections filed under Order 41, Rule 22 of CPC by the respondents- claimants in this appeal contending that neither the provisions of the MV Act nor the rules framed thereunder contemplate filing of cross-objections by the claimants. Counsel further submitted that in view of the ratio laid down by a single Judge of this Court in Madras Motor and General Insurance Company v. K. Subbareddy, AIR 1974 AP 310, following the view taken by the Madras High Court in Venkatarama Doss Pantulu v. Bheema Rao, AIR 1934 Mad. 103 (1), the award passed by the Tribunal is not a decree and as such cross-objections under Order 41, Rule 22 of CPC cannot be maintained.

( 4 ) ON the contrary, Sri V. Sudhakar Reddy, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents-claimants submitted that the decision (supra) relied upon by the learned Counsel for the appellant has been overruled by a Division Bench of this Court in Srisailam Devasthanam, represented by Executive Officer, Srisailam v. Bhavani Prameelamma, 1983 (2) APLJ 20, wherein it is held that cross-objections Order 41, Rule 22 of CPC are maintainable in the appeal filed in High Court. Learned Counsel also submitted while placing reliance on a decision of this Court in APSRTC, Musheerabad v. Patan Shamshad Begum, 2000 (1) ALD 165 (DB), that even though no appeal is filed seeking enhancement of the compensation by the claimants, in the said decision, the Division Bench of this Court held that by virtue of the provisions contemplated under Order 41, Rule 33 CPC this Court is empowered to enhance the compensation amount though the respondents-claimants have not filed any appeal seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal in a case. Counsel, therefore, submitted that in view of the above legal position, the claimants/cross-objectors may be awarded the total compensation as claimed by them in the OP.

( 5 ) BE that as it may, the question with regard to the maintainability of cross-objections under Order 41, Rule 22 in an appeal filed against an award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal is no longer res integra. A similar question fell for consideration before us in CMA No. 1726 of 1997 along with cross-objections, and on a detailed hearing of the learned senior Counsel on behalf of the respective parties and after considering various decisions including the decision (supra) and the Full Bench decisions of Allahabad and Karnataka High Courts in U. P. State Road Transport Corporation v. Smt. Janki Devi, AIR 1982 All. 296 (FB), and K. Chandrashekara Naik v. Narayana, AIR 1975 Karn. 18 (FB), we held, by judgment dated 19-12-2001 that the award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal is a decree and that the claimants are entitled to file cross-objections in

Click Here to Read the rest of this document