Both the appeals are filed by the National Insurance Company Limited/second respondent before the Tribunal challenging the order dated 14.7.2003 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-III Additional District Judge, Kurnool in MVOP Nos. 141 and 147 of 2003.

2. The cross-objections are filed by the respondents/claimants in both the appeals. Since the claim cases under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act before the Tribunal arose out of the same accident and as common question of fact and law would arise for consideration, the appeals and cross-objections are disposed of by the following common judgment.

3. Two persons viz. G. Hussain Basha, aged 23 years and G. Narasimha Reddy, aged 55 years died in a motor vehicle accident at 6.00 a.m., on 16.2.2001 allegedly on account of the rash and negligent driving of the lorry bearing No. AP 15 T 9024 on the fateful day, the deceased Hussain Basha was driving the jeep bearing No. AP 21 D 0029 from Tenali to Vijayawada. While the said jeep was on its way, the lorry bearing No. AP 15 T 9024 came from behind at fast speed in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the jeep. In the said accident, the driver of the jeep Hussain Basha and Narasimha Reddy died in consequence of the injuries received. The legal representatives, who are the parents of the Hussain Basha filed MVOP No. 141 of 2003 claiming compensation of Rs. 4,05,000/-, and the legal representatives of the deceased Narasimha Reddy filed MVOP No. 147 of 2003 claiming compensation of Rs. 3,10,000/-. The learned Tribunal after making enquiry into both the claims held that the accident was solely on account of the rash and negligent driving of the lorry bearing No. AP 15 T 9024 by its driver, made the owner of the said lorry and the appellant/insurance company with which the said vehicle was insured at material time jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the claimants. The Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs. 3,03,000/- with interest @ 9% per annum in MVOP No. 141 of 2003 and awarded compensation of Rs. 1,54,336/- with interest @ 9% per annum in MVOP No. 147 of 2003.

4. Assailing the said awards, the National Insurance Company filed the present two appeals. In the said two appeals, the claimants/respondents filed cross-objections contending that the compensation granted by the Tribunal is grossly inadequate and requires enhancement.

5. I have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant/insurance company and the learned Counsel appearing for the respondents/claimants.

6. The appeals as well as cross-objections having been directed against the quantum of compensation, the other issues need not be adverted to. The learned Counsel appearing for the appellant/insurance company, however, raised the question while arguing the appeals that there is no provision under the Motor Vehicles Act enabling the parties to file cross-objections, the claimants, therefore, ought to have filed appeals challenging the findings in the award and the cross-objections filed by them are not maintainable.

7. In support of his contention that under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act filing cross-objections in the appeal is not provided for and the claimants have to necessarily file separate appeals, relied on New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Dindigal, Tamilnadu State and another v. Vasireddy Sujatharani, 2011 (5) ALD 156 (DB), wherein the Division Bench of this Court held as follows:

"Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act does not provide for filing any cross-objections by the respondent in the appeal. In the absence of any such provision, cross-objection filed by the claimant does not deserve consideration."

8. In the said case, the Division Bench, of this Court rejected the cross-objections filed by the claimant. The Division Bench for rendering the said decision, followed the judgment of the Supreme Court in Superintending Engineer v. B. Subba Reddy, 1999 (4) ALD 38 (SC) = (1999) 4 SCC 423, apart from some other cases. In th