Cross objections in civil appeals must be filed within the 30-day limit set by Order 41, Rule 22 CPC; failure to do so, without valid reasons, renders them inadmissible.

JUDGMENT

Rohit Ranjan Agarwal, J.

In Re: Civil Misc. Delay Condonation Application No.05 of 2023

Heard Sri. Rakesh Kumar Porwal, learned counsel for the respondents no.1 to 3 and 5 and Sri. Aditya Singh Parihar, learned counsel for the appellant.

2. The cross objection/cross appeal has been filed with the delay of almost 7 years. The judgment and award passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bijnor in MACT Case No.88 of 2013 (Smt. Seema Devi and others v. Shehnawaz Chaudhary and others) is dated 06.08.2016.

3. The respondents before this Court had preferred a caveat application and were heard by this Court when the award was challenged by the Insurance Company/appellant. This Court on 01.12.2016 had admitted the appeal and issued notices to the respondents.

4. The earlier counsel representing the respondents no.1 to 3 and 5 did not file any cross objection/cross appeal, and it was in the year 2023 as alleged in paras 3 to 6 of the delay condonation application filed in the cross objection/cross appeal that a new counsel was engaged by the contesting respondents and they were advised to file cross objection/cross appeal.

5. Sri. Porwal, learned counsel appearing for contesting respondents states that various issues have not been decided and dealt with by the Tribunal while deciding the MAC case and the award has wrongly been made. He has relied upon the decision of Karnataka High Court in case of Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation v. R. Sethuram , 1996 (0) Supreme (Kar) 247, wherein the Court while interpreting the provisions of Order 41, Rule 22 CPC had held that though the proviso provides for filing of the cross objections within one month from the date of service of notice, but the Court found that the cross objections cannot be rejected as time barred. He further submitted that there are various issues which can only be decided when the cross objections are allowed.

6. On the contrary, Sri. Aditya Singh Parihar, learned counsel appearing for Insurance Company has heavily relied upon the decision of the Apex Court rendered in case of Ranjana Prakash and Ors. v. Division Manager and Another, 2012 AIR SCW 848. Paragraphs 6, 7 and 8 are extracted hereas under:-

"6. We are of the view that High Court committed an error in ignoring the contention of the claimants. It is true that the claimants had not challenged the award of the Tribunal on the ground that the Tribunal had failed to take note of future prospects and add 30% to the annual income of the deceased.

But the claimants were not aggrieved by Rs. 23,134/- being taken as the monthly income. There was therefore no need for them to challenge the award of the Tribunal. But where in an appeal filed by the owner/insurer, if the High Court proposes to reduce the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the claimants can certainly defend the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, by pointing out other errors or omissions in the award, which if taken note of, would show that there was no need to reduce the amount awarded as compensation. Therefore, in an appeal by the owner/insurer, the appellant can certainly put forth a contention that if 30% is to be deducted from the income for whatsoever reason, 30% should also be added towards future prospects, so that the compensation awarded is not reduced. The fact that claimants did not independently challenge the award will not therefore come in the way of their defending the compensation awarded, on other grounds. It would only mean that in an appeal by the owner/insurer, the claimants will not be entitled to