Claim for compensation by widow and for children.

N.S. RAMASWAMI, J. :- This appeal is filed by the second respondent in claim petition No. 37 of 1966 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Tirunelveli. The appellant is the insurer of the vehicle which was involved in the motor accident. The claimants are the widow and children of one Lucas Hass Morals who died in the motor accident that occurred at about 2 p.m. on 1-2-1956. The motor vehicle involved in the accident is a taxi bearing registration No. MDU 8441, and owned by the first respondent to the claim petition. The claimants prayed for a total compensation of Rs. 25,000 towards loss of benefit as a result of the death of Lucas Hass Morals. The two respondents to the claim petition resisted the claim. But, ultimately the Tribunal held that the accident was as a result of rash and negligent driving of the motor vehicle, that the claimants are entitled to compensation and fixed the quantum of compensation at Rs. 9,600. It has passed an award for such sum against the owner of the vehicle as well as the insurer. The Insurance Company has preferred this appeal and the only contention raised before us is trust as per Section 95(2)(b) of the Motor Vehicles Act, as it stood prior to 1969 amendment, the maximum amount to which the insurer can be made liable, in this case, is only Rs. 4,000. The contention is that the Insurance Company cannot be asked to pay the entire sum of Rs. 9,600 awarded as the compensation.

2. The claimants had not preferred any independent appeal claiming enhancement of compensation fixed by the Tribunal. But, they have filed a cross-objection to the appeal filed by the Insurance Company in which they have claimed enhancement of compensation against the insurance company as well as the owner of the vehicle. It may be noted that the owner of the vehicle who was the first respondent in the claim petition has been impleaded as pro forma respondent in the appeal preferred by the Insurance Company. Now, in the cross-objection the prayer is for enhancement of compensation not only against the insurance company, who is the appellant, but also against the owner of the vehicle, who is one of the respondents to the appeal.

3. There can be no doubt that the appeal of the Insurance Company has to be allowed. Section 95(2)(b) as it stood prior to 1969 amendment provided that the maximum liability of an insurance company in respect of a vehicle which carries passengers is limited to Rs. 20,000 in respect of all passengers who travelled in the vehicle and there is the further restriction that in respect of an individual passenger, the maximum liability of the insurance company is Rs. 4,000 in the case of vehicle carrying six or less passengers and Rs. 2,000 in the case of a vehicle carrying more than six passengers. The vehicle which is a taxi was to carry less than six passengers, and as per the said provision, the maximum liability, regarding the death of one of the passengers on the Insurance Company is only Rs. 4,000 as the law stood then. Therefore, the appeal of the Insurance Company has to be allowed.

4. Regarding the cross-objection two preliminary objections were raised. The first is that the appeal being one arising under a special statute and the Civil Procedure Code not being applicable to the Tribunal constituted under the said statute, viz., the Motor Vehicles Act, no cross-objection can be filed. It is pointed out that under Section 110-D, though there is provision for any of the aggrieved parties to file an appeal, there is nothing in the section permitting a respondent to an appeal to file cross-objection.

5. In support of this contention, three decisions were relied on. The first is Vedantacharsami v. Sri Muthiah Chetti, (1955) 68 Mad LW 66. The other two decisions are not reported and they are in A. A. O. No. 317 of 1967 (Mad.) (Srinivasan v. Subbiah Chettiar) and A. A. O. No. 222 of 1970 (Mad.) (Govindaraj v. Venugopal). One of these two decisions (A. A. O. No. 317 of 1967) is render