Cross-objections are maintainable in appeals filed by insurance companies, enabling the respondent-claimant to seek enhancement of compensation.

( 1 ) A learned single judge of this court found that the earlier division bench has not considered the Provisions of order 41, Rule 22 of the Civil Procedure Code which enables the cross-objector to take grounds which could have been taken in respect of the findings which are against him and, therefore, the decision of this court in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. V. V. Balasubramanyam, 1990 ACJ 736 (karnataka), relying on the earlier decision in National Insurance Co. Ltd. V. H. N. Rama Prasad, 1985 ACJ 864 (karnataka), holding that in appeal filed by the insurance company, the scope of appeal is limited and the question of quantum cannot be gone into by filing cross-objections requires reconsideration. Hence he referred the matter to the Hon'ble chief Justice to constitute a larger bench vide order dated 22. 1. 2002.

( 2 ) THUS vide order dated 1. 4. 2002 passed by the Hon'ble chief justice, this reference is placed before us on 8. 4. 2002.

( 3 ) THE necessary facts leading to the order of reference are: one prakash jogi while he was going on moped on 20. 10. 96 collided with a lorry and died. Respondent nos. 1 to 3 and one devappa, petitioner nos. 1 to 4, filed a petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 claiming a compensation of Rs. 10,00,000 on 30. 11. 1996. Respondent No. 2, the insurance company filed counter denying the allegations. Owner of lorry r-1 remained ex parte. After hearing the parties, tribunal awarded compensation of Rs. 1,61,095 with costs and also awarded interest at 9 per cent per annum from the date of filing of the petition till the date of payment, vide order dated 9. 3. 1999. Aggrieved by the judgment and award passed, the appellant National Insurance Co. Ltd. Has filed this appeal alleging that the tribunal was not justified in fixing the liability on the insurance company as it is not liable to pay compensation because as on 20. 10. 1996, the date of accident, driver was not having a valid driving licence. The claimantrespondent nos. 1 to 3 after notice have filed cross-objections under order 41, Rule 22 of the Civil Procedure Code seeking enhancement of the compensation amount.

( 4 ) THE learned counsel for the appellant insurance company contended that the appellant is not liable to pay compensation as the lorry driver had no valid licence and further submitted that when this appeal is filed by the insurance company challenging the liability to pay compensation and has not challenged the quantum at all, the respondents cannot file cross-objections for enhancement of compensation. The learned counsel relied on the following judgments in National Insurance Co. Ltd. V. H. N. Rama Prasad, 1985 ACJ 864 (karnataka); Panna Lal V. State of Bombay, AIR 1963 SC 1516; united India insurance co. Ltd. V. V. Balasubramanyam, 1990 ACJ 736 (karnataka) and united India insurance co. Ltd. V. V. Nagarathna, 2001 ACJ 1632 (karnataka ).

( 5 ) THE learned counsel for respondent nos. 1 to 3 contended that the division bench has said that when the insurance company has filed an appeal to the extent of its liability the respondents have no right to file cross-objections on that ground. It is submitted that in an appeal filed by the insurance company cross-objections filed by the claimants are maintainable in view of the Provisions of Rule 256 of the Motor Vehicles Rules read with order 41, Rule 22 of the Civil Procedure Code. The learned counsel relied on the decisions in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. V. V. Balasubramanyam, 1990 ACJ 736 (karnataka) and panna lal V. State of Bombay, AIR 1963 SC 1516.

( 6 ) THE point for reference is whether the Provisions of order 41, Rule 22 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908, enable the crossobjectors to take grounds which could have been raised by way of appeal in respect of findings against them.

( 7 ) THE decision of this court in united India insurance co. V. V. Balasubramanyam, 1990 ACJ 736 (karnataka), wherein it was held that in an appeal filed by t