The High Court acts as a Court in deciding an appeal under Section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act and not as a Tribunal. Therefore, the provisions of Rule 22 of Order 41 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which allows for the filing of cross-objections, are applicable to such appeals.

SARMA, J. :- This is an appeal under Section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act by the Insurer M/s Phoenix Assurance Co. Ltd., hereinafter called the appellant, against the award dated 29-7-71 of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Cachar, awarding a sum of Rs. 6,000/- by way of compensation to the petitioner - respondent Kalpana Rajput, a minor girl represented by her father, on account of the injuries sustained by her in a motor accident.

2. The petitioners case was that on 1-4-1968 at about 7.30 A. M. she was knocked down by a motor-truck bearing No. ASC 2401 owned by opposite party No. 1 Khalilur Rahman and insured with the opposite party No. 2 - the present appellant, at Itkhola Road of Silchar town as a result of which she sustained several injuries including a grievous injury, i. e. fracture of the right tibia resulting in permanent deformation of her leg. On account of the injury she had to be treated as an indoor patient in the Civil Hospital at Silchar for about a year. In her application she claimed a sum of Rupees 15,000/- as compensation without giving any particulars.

3. The claim was resisted by both the opposite parties by filing two separate written statements on similar grounds. It was not denied that the truck belonging to opposite party No. 1 and insured with opposite party No. 2 knocked down the petitioner causing some injuries to her. They however denied that the accident occurred due to any rashness, negligence or fault of the driver of the vehicle and alleged that it was due to circumstances beyond the control of the driver and mainly due to the negligence of the petitioner herself. The claim was also resisted on the ground that it was fanciful and highly inflated.

4. Several issues were framed by the Claims Tribunal, including one, as to whether the claimant was injured due to rashness, negligence or fault of the driver of the vehicle, which was issue No. 4. The petitioner examined four witnesses including the Doctor who examined her injuries and her father. Opposite party No. 1 (the owner of the vehicle) examined the driver of the vehicle in support of his case. No evidence was adduced by opposite party No. 2 i. e. the present appellant.

5. On a consideration of the evidence adduced by the parties the learned Tribunal, in deciding the issue No. 4. held that he was unable to conclusively hold that the accident occurred due to rashness, negligence or fault on the part of the driver. This issue was accordingly answered in the negative. In the result the Tribunal held that the owner of the vehicle was not liable to pay any compensation. In view of the injuries sustained by the petitioner particularly her leg injury which is said to have caused permanent deformation and partial disablement, the Tribunal however held that the appellant, with whom the vehicle was insured, was liable to pay compensation. The Tribunal assessed the compensation for her injuries at Rs. 5,500/- and that for the expenses incurred for her treatment at Rupees 500/- and thus it awarded to the petitioner a sum of Rupees 6000/- as compensation payable by the appellant. Against this order the present appeal has been filed by the Insurance Company. The claimant-petitioner did not file any appeal, but on receipt of notice of the appeal filed by the Insurance Company, she filed a cross-objection challenging the finding of the Tribunal on issue No. 4 and also the adequacy of the quantum of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

6. Shri K. L. Jain, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted before us that the Tribunal having held that the driver of the vehicle was not guilty of any rashness or negligence and that the owner was not liable to pay any compensation, committed an error in law in awarding compensation to the petitioner payable by the appellant. He further contended that the cross-objection filed by the petitioner-respondent is not maintainable in law. Shri S. K. Senapati, the learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 con