Back
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : O.CHINNAPPA REDDY
Madras Motor and General Insurance Co. - Appellant
Versus
Katanreddi Subbareddy - Respondent
Decided On : 08-06-73
MOTOR VEHICLES ACT - SECTION 110-D (2) - CROSS-OBJECTION - MAINTAINABILITY - INSURANCE POLICY - LIABILITY TO THIRD PARTIES - INTERPRETATION - SECTION 96 (1) - APPLICABILITY TO PROCEEDINGS BEFORE CLAIMS TRIBUNAL - COMPULSORY INSURANCE FOR PASSENGERS.
Fact of the Case:
A motor car collided with a stationary motor lorry at a check-post. Two advocates traveling in the car were injured. They filed claims for compensation before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, which awarded compensation to them. The insurer of the car appealed against the award, and one of the claimants filed a cross-objection.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the cross-objection was not maintainable as the provisions of Order 41, Rule 22 of the Civil Procedure Code were not attracted to appeals under Section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act. The court also held that the insurer was liable to pay compensation to the claimants as the policy covered liability incurred by the insured in respect of injury caused to the occupants of the car. The court further held that Section 96 (1) of the Motor Vehicles Act was not applicable to proceedings before the Claims Tribunal.
Issues: 1. Whether the cross-objection was maintainable. 2. Whether the insurer was liable to pay compensation to the claimants. 3. Whether Section 96 (1) of the Motor Vehicles Act was applicable to proceedings before the Claims Tribunal.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The provisions of Order 41, Rule 22 of the Civil Procedure Code are not attracted to appeals under Section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act. 2. The policy covered liability incurred by the insured in respect of injury caused to the occupants of the car. 3. Section 96 (1) of the Motor Vehicles Act is not applicable to proceedings before the Claims Tribunal.
Final Decision: The cross-objection was dismissed. The appeal was dismissed with costs.
( 1 ) ON 26-6-1968 a motor car proceeding towards Hyderabad collided with a stationary motor lorry at a check-post about six miles from Hyderabad. The car belonged to one Dasaradharam Reddy who was however not travelling in the car at the time of the incident. It was driven by Srinivasulu, a driver employed by the owner. Subba Reddy and Sundarami Reddy two advocates of Nellore, friends and legal advisers of the owner of the car, were travelling in the car at the time of the accident. Both received injuries. Sundarami Reddy not very seriously but Subba Reddy quite seriously - he lost the use of an eye. Subba Reddy and Sundarami Reddy filed O. P. Nos 188 and 189 of 1968 before the Motor Accidents Claims tribunal claiming compensation of Rs. 22500. 00 and Rs. 4350. 00 respectively. The owner and driver of the car and the insurer were impleaded as parties to the petition. The petitions were contested. It was alleged that the accident was not due to the negligence of the driver. That finding was not disputed before me. It was also claimed by the insurer that neither the terms of policy nor the provisions of the Act made the insurer liable for injuries caused to passengers travelling in the motor car. The contention was overruled by the tribunal. The tribunal awarded compensation of Rs. 8,000. 00 to Subba Reddy and Rs. 1,000. 00 to Sundarami Reddy. The insurers liability was fixed at Rs. 6,475. 00 and Rs. 825. 00 respectively. The Tribunal disallowed costs to the claimants on the ground that their claims were exaggerated. I will have to say something about this later. The insurer preferred two appeals which are before me and Subba Reddy has preferred cross objection.
( 2 ) SECTION 110-D (2) of the Motor Vehicles Act prescribes that no appeal shall lie against any award of a tribunal if the amount in dispute in the appeal is less than two thousand rupees. The compensation awarded to Sundarami Reddy was only Rs. 1000. 00 and the appeal filed by the insurer was therefore valued at Rs. 1000. 00 clearly the appeal was barred by S. 110-D (2 ). The appeal is accordingly dismissed with costs.
( 3 ) BEFORE dealing with the insurers appeal against Subba Reddy, I will deal with the cross-objection filed by Subba Reddy. The learned counsel for the insurer raised an objection to the maintainability of the cross-objection. He argued that the Act made no provisions for the filing of cross-objection and that the provisions of Order 41, Rule 22 were not attracted to appeals under Section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act. The learned counsel for the cross-objector urged that once the appeal reached the High Court all the provisions in the Civil Procedure Code applicable to appeals to the High Court were automatically attracted. He also relied on the decision of the Madly Pradesh High Court in Manjula Devi v. Manjusri, 1968 ACJ 1 (Madh Pra) and that of the Delhi High Court in Delhi Transport Undertaking v. Rajkumari , 1972 ACJ 403 (Delhi ).
( 4 ) MUCH as I am tempted to hold that cross-objections are maintainable. I am afraid I cannot do so. A claim for compensation arising out of accidents involving motor vehicles has to be made under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act in the form of an application. The application is to be made to a claims tribunal. The determination of the claims tribunal is called an award under Section 110-B of the Act. The appeal that is provided by Section 110-D is against the award of the claims tribunal. Thus the proceeding is initiated not by a plaint but by an application. The proceeding ends with an award and not with a decree. The award is therefore, not a decree within the meaning of Section 2 (2) of the Civil Procedure Code since the proceeding is not a suit initiated by the presentation of a plaint to a Court. Nor is the award treated by the Act as the decree of a Court for the purpose of an appeal as in the case of awards made by a Court on reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition A
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
