( 1 ) THE Division Bench of this Court which heard the appeal, has referred to the Full Bench the following question: in an appeal under S. 110d of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, are crossobjections by a respondent maintainable ?

( 2 ) IN Harthi Adirajaiah v. Savandamma, (1973) 1 Mys. L. J 247. and A. Rahman v. Wabber, (1973) 1 Mys. L. J 371. two Division Benches of this Court have taken the view that in an appeal under S. 110d of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter referred to as the 'act'), cross-oblections cannot be filed invoking the,"provisions of Order 41, Rule 22 CPC. In view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Collector, Varanasi v. Gaouri Shankar Misra, AIR 1968 SC 384. the Divn Bench which has referred the above question to a Full Bench, was of the opinion that the above rulings of this court require reconsideration.

( 3 ) MR. B. P. Holla, learned Advocate for the first respondent, contended that in view of the pronouncement of the Supreme Court in National sewing Thread Co. Ltd. v. James Chadwick and Bros. LTd, AIR 1953 SC 357. and Collector, Varanasi v. Gaouri Shankar Mishra (3) the view taken by the Divn Benches of this Court in the, aforesaid two decisions is not correct. He urged that in the absence of any special procedure prescribed in the Act or the rules thereunder, the appeal must be regulated by the general practice and procedure of this Court in appeals. He therefore urged that by necessary implication the provisions of the CPC relating to, appeals to the High court are to be followed and that cross-objections filed in appeals under s. 110d of the Act are maintainable.

( 4 ) ON the other hand, Mr. T. S. Krishna Bhat, learned Advocate for the, appellants, contended the right to file cross-objections is a substantive right which must be - conferred expressly by the statute and that in the absence of express conferment of such a right, cross-objections are not maintainable. He further contended that if the right to file cross-objections is permitted, it enlarges the period of limitation prescribed in the- Act for preferring appeals. Therefore, he urged that the cross-objections are not maintainable.

( 5 ) BEFORE we proceed to consider the validity of the rival contentions- putforward by learned Counsel, it is necessary to refer to the relevant provisions of the Act and the rules made thereunder. The Act was radically amended by the Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 1956 (Central Act 100 of 1956) which substituted S. 110 of the Act and added Ss. 110a to 110f. S. 110 of the Act as it stands now provides inter alia for constitution by the State Govt by a Notification in the. Official Gazette of Motor accidents Claims Tribunals in such areas as may be specified thereunder for the purpose of adjudication of claims for compensation in respect of accidents involving the death o| or bodily injury to persons arising out of the use of motor vehicles. S. 110d of the Act which provides for appeals after awards of claims tribunals reads as under. * * * * s. 111a of the. Act empowers the State Govt to make rules for the purpose of carrying into effect the provisions of Ss. 110 to 110e and in particular such rules may provide for the form and the manner in which and the fees on payment of which an appeal. may be preferred against an award of a Claims Tribunal.

( 6 ) IN exercise of the power conferred by S. 111a and other enabling sections of the Act the Govt of Karnataka has framed Rules called the karnataka Motor Vehicles Rules 1963. The title of Chap. VII of those Rules is the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunals Rules. Rule 363 prescribes that every appeal against the award of the Claims tribunal shall be preferred in the form of memorandum signed by the appellant or his Pleader end presented to the High Court or to such officer as it appoints in this behalf and that memorandum shall be accompanied by a copy of the award. It further provides that the memorandum shall set forth concisely and under distinct heads the gr

Click Here to Read the rest of this document