M. Satyanarayana Murthy, J.

1. The preliminary objection raised by learned counsel for the second respondent-Insurance Company is about maintainability of Cross-objections under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (For short, 'the Act'). Therefore, we feel that it is expedient to decide the preliminary issue of maintainability of Cross-objections in the petition filed under Motor Vehicles Act. Admittedly, Cross-Objections (SR) No. 33069 of 2005 is filed by the petitioners-claimants challenging the quantum of compensation.

2. The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, is a special enactment which is intended for the benefit of injured persons or the legal heirs of deceased persons in the motor accidents and it is benevolent and welfare legislation.

3. The main contention of second respondent-Insurance Company is that in the absence of any specific provision in the Motor Vehicles Act, which is special law, the Cross-objections are not maintainable. However, the same is refuted by the learned counsel for the Cross-objectors contending that even in the absence of any provision in Motor Vehicles Act, the provisions of C.P.C. permits to file Cross-objections. Both the counsel relied on several decisions of the Apex Court and other High Courts in support of their contentions, which will be referred at relevant stage.

4. Now the question to be decided by this Court is maintainability of Cross-objections.

5. Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act provides an Appeal to the High Court against the Award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, which is equivalent to Section 96 of C.P.C. Section 96 of C.P.C. is totally silent about the Cross-objections, but Order 41 Rule 22 of C.P.C. provides a right to file Cross-objections. Whenever an Appeal is filed by one party either questioning the adverse findings recorded against the cross-objectors or to support the finding of the trial Court, Order 41 Rule 22 of C.P.C. gives two distinct rights to the respondents in Appeal; the first is the right of upholding the decree of Court of first instance on any of the grounds on which the Court decided against them and the second right is that of taking any Cross-objection to the decree which the respondents might have taken by way of Appeal. In the first case, second respondent-Insurance Company supports the decree and in the second case, he attacks the decree. The explanation to Order 41 Rule 22 of C.P.C. empowering the respondents to file Cross-objections in respect of a finding adverse to them notwithstanding that the ultimate decision is wholly or partly in their favour. Thus, there is sufficient remedy provided under Order 41 Rule 22 of C.P.C. to file Cross-objections by the respondents in the Appeal, but Motor vehicles Act and Rules framed there under are totally silent regarding the right to file Cross-objections either to support the decree or to challenge the adverse findings. In such a case, there is any amount of doubt about the maintainability of Cross-objections under the Motor Vehicles Act in Appeal filed against the Award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal. The learned counsel for the second respondent-Insurance Company has drawn the attention of this Court to a Division Bench decision of this Court in The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and P. Yasodarani, Lorry Owner Mettupalli Vs. Vasireddy Sujatharani, (2011) 5 ALD 156, wherein the Division Bench of this Court relying on various decisions rendered in Branch Manager, New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Are Ramulu @ S. Ramulu and Another, (2007) 3 ALD 531, United India Insurance Company Vs. Dasari Lakshmi and Others, (2005) ACJ 825, Vaidyanath Singh Vs. Gulabkali and Others, (1997) 1 ACC 281, New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Kehro Devi and Others held that Cross-objections in the proceedings initiated under the Motor Vehicles Act are not maintainable referring to the specific Rule i.e., Rule 473 of Andhra Pradesh Motor Vehicles Rules, 1999 regarding application of certain provisions of C.P.C. to th