Back
2016 Supreme(Raj) 1021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
VIJAY KUMAR VYAS, J.
Smt. Norti W/o Late Shri Tej Pal & Ors. - Appellants
Vs.
Murad S/o Shri Subrat Khan & Ors. - Respondents
Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1207 of 2005 with Civil Cross Objections No. 47 of 2005 in Civil Misc. Appeal No. 1207 of 2005
Decided On : 23-11-2016
For the Appellants : Shri Ram Singh Rathore
For the Respondent Insurance Company: Shri Praveen Jain
For the cross-objectors : Shri Sandeep Mathur, Shri Kapil Sharma
Headnote:
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 – Section 173 – Motor Vehicles Rules, 1990 – Rule.10 and 31 – Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Order XXI and Order XLI – Order.41 R.22 – entire liability – Claim against Respondent – Accident Claims – Compensation Awarded – Learned counsel for claimants submitted that as per insurance policy insurance company has charged premium to cover risk of passengers of Jeep deceased was traveling not on hire / reward basis in jeep – Aggrieved by impugned judgment claimants have preferred this appeal for enhancement of the award and also to held liable respondents No.2 and 3 as well, to pay compensation – On contrary respondent Murad preferred cross objections with a prayer to quash and set aside impugned award passed against him alternative also with a prayer if claimants are found entitled to receive any amount of compensation then entire liability of paying compensation be fastened on respondents No.2 – Held, Murad has filed cross-objection before High Court in appeal preferred by claimants – As per Tribunal respondent Murad is sole person against whom award is passed it was mandatory for him to deposit at least twenty five thousand rupees or fifty per cent of amount whichever is less of award before filing cross-objection – Since respondent Murad has not deposited said amount prior to preferring cross-objection cross objection submitted by him cannot be entertained appellant is required to deposit with High Court twenty five thousand rupees or fifty per cent of amount awarded whichever is less failing which appeal by a person who is required to pay any amount in terms of award impugned shall not be entertained by High Court – On same corollary when a person who is required to pay any amount in terms of impugned award cannot raise cross-objection under O.41 R.22, CPC without depositing twenty five thousand or fifty per cent of amount of award – Claimants is partly allowed.
Certainly. Here is a summary of the general legal principle regarding the maintainability of cross-objections by the owner of a vehicle in an appeal filed by the claimant:
A cross-objection filed by the owner of the vehicle is maintainable in an appeal initiated by the claimant, provided that the owner complies with the procedural requirement of depositing a specified amount—either at least twenty-five thousand rupees or fifty percent of the awarded amount, whichever is less—before filing the cross-objection (!) . Failure to deposit this amount prior to submitting the cross-objection typically results in the court refusing to entertain or give effect to the cross-objection (!) (!) .
Therefore, the key factor for the maintainability of such cross-objections is the timely deposit of the prescribed amount, after which the cross-objection can be considered as part of the appellate proceedings.
1. Since both matters – appeal and cross objections, have been preferred against the same impugned judgment of learned Tribunal, they are being decided by this common order.
2. The appeal has arisen out of judgment dated 28.3.2005 passed by learned Additional District Judge (Fast Track) No.7, Jaipur City, Jaipur – cum – Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (For short “the Tribunal”), in Motor Accident Claim Case No.260/2004, whereby a claim of Rs.16,93,120/- has been awarded in favour of appellants and against respondent No.1 Murad, along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of presentation of the claim petition dated 14.8.2002, till realisation of the amount. Claim against respondent No.2 Gopal Lal Daroga and No.3, National Insurance Co. Ltd., was rejected.
3. Aggrieved by the impugned judgment, the claimants have preferred this appeal for enhancement of the award and also to held liable respondents No.2 and 3 as well, to pay the compensation. On the contrary, respondent No.1 Murad preferred cross objections with a prayer to quash and set aside the impugned award passed against him. In alternative, also with a prayer if the claimants are found entitled to receive any amount of compensation, then the entire liability of paying compensation be fastened on respondents No.2 and 3.
4. In Brief, facts of the case are that when deceased Tejpal was going towards Dudu in Jeep No.RJF-9234, driven rashly and negligently by respondent No.1 Murad, caused an accident with a tractor. As a result, the jeep was turtled. Tejpal died on the spot. Wife, three children and parents of the deceased preferred a claim petition for compensation of Rs.47,55,000/- against respondents. Learned Tribunal decided the petition vide judgment impugned and awarded the claim as stated hereinabove.
5. Learned counsel for claimants submitted that as per insurance policy (Ex.5), the insurance company has charged premium of Rs.509/- to cover the risk of passengers of the Jeep No.RJF-9234. The deceased was traveling not on hire / reward basis in the jeep. Murad (NAW- 2), driver of the jeep, stated before the Tribunal that he did not charge anything from the deceased. The deceased known to him, was traveling along with other family members of the witness. Being gratuitous passenger, his risk was covered by insurance policy as a third party. He referred in support, New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Satpal Singh and Others, 2000 ACJ 1.
6. Learned counsel for the claimants submitted that at the time of accident, registered owner of the jeep was respondent No.2. The registered owner cannot be absolved from his liability until registration is transferred in other's name. Therefore, respondent No.2 has wrongly been absolved from liability of compensating the claimants.
7. Learned counsel for the claimants also submitted that learned Tribunal has not granted sufficient amount toward loss of consortium and loss of love & affection which is liable to be enhanced to the extent of Rs.1,00,000/- for each claimant. Meager amount of Rs.5,000/- awarded for expenses to meet out the funeral, also deserves to be enhanced to the extent of Rs.25,000/-. In support, he has referred Rajesh & Ors. vs. Rajbir Singh & Ors., MACD 2013 (SC) 186.
8. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 Murad, who preferred cross objections, submitted that until the registration of a vehicle is transferred in name of other person, the registered owner continues to be liable to compensate the claims under Motor Vehicles Act. Respondent No.2 Gopal Lal Daroga has been examined before the Tribunal as NAW-3. He has admitted that though he had sold the jeep prior to the accident to respondent No.1, yet the Registration Certificate was in his name. He has referred P.P. Mohammed vs. K. Rajappan and Others, 2003 ACJ 1595. Learned counsel has further submitted that Babu Lal Parewa (NAW-4) has been examined
