Back
1996 JLJ 589
D.M. Dharmadhikari and Fakhruddin, JJ.
Oriental Insurance Co. v. Dwarika Prasad Agarwal and others
Misc. Appeal No. 122 of 1993; Decided on 1.8.1995.
(2) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 -- Ss. 173 and 170 -- permission to contest the case on every point not obtained by insurer -- it cannot file appeal on point of negligence and quantum. 1995 JLJ 167 relied on. [Para 2
(3) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 -- S. 173 – Civil P.C., 1908 -- O. 41 R. 22-appeal under S. 173 of the Act -- cross-objection under O. 41 R. 22 of the Code is maintainable. 1968 JLJ 189, AIR 1977 Raj. 121, AIR 1980 HP 16 and AIR 1983 AP 297 relied on. [para 6
(4) Civil P.C., 1908 -- O. 41 R. 22 -- Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 -- S. 173 -appeal under S. 173 of the Act -- cross objection under O.41 R. 22 of the Code is maintainable. 1968 JLJ 189, AIR 1977 Raj. 121, AIR 1980 HP 16 and AIR 1983 AP 297 relied on. [Para 6
(5) Civil P.C., 1908 -- O. 41 R. 22 (4) -- Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 -- Ss. 173 and 149 (2) -- appeal after final hearing dismissed as not maintainable -- cross objection does not fall with the appeal-- it is to be heard and finally decided on merits.
(6) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 -- Ss. 173 and 149 (2) -- Civil P.C., 1908-O.41 R. 22 (4) -- appeal under Motor Vehicles Act heard and dismissed as not maintainable -- cross objection does not fall with the appeal -- it is to heard and finally decided on merits.
The provisions of Order 41 Rule 22 CPC have been applied to the appeals under the Motor Vehicles Act only by way of the established practice and procedure of the civil Court. Provisions of Order 41 Rule 22 CPC cannot be strictly made applicable to appeals preferred under the Motor Vehicles Act. We have also carefully looked into the provisions contained in subd`rule (4) of Order 41 Rule 22 CPC. Prima facie, we find that sub rule (4) in Order 41 Rule 22 was incorporated only by way of abundant caution, so that in the eventualities of withdrawal or dismissal of the appeal in default, cross objection may be allowed to be urged. Sub rule (4) of Order 41 Rule 22 CPC does not cover, therefore, all other eventualities where appeal is dismissed. Here, the appeal is dismissed after hearing on the ground that the defences open to the appellant are limited. The cross objection will have, therefore, to be heard and does not fall alongwith the appeal. When the appeal is filed and notice of the appeal is issued after admission, it cannot be held that the appeal itself is non-est from the beginning.1(1989) ACC 191 overruled. M.A. No. 95/95 distinguished. AIR 1979 Cal. 152 relied on. (1912) 34 ILR All. 140, (1909) 4 I.C. 625, (1898) 12 Mad. 35, AIR 1982 All. 296, AIR 1952 All. 942 and AIR 1951 Simla 170 referred to. [Paras 3, 4 & 10
¼1½ eksVj ;ku vf/kfu;e] 1988 & /kkjk 170] 149 ¼2½ rFkk 173 & chekdrkZ }kjk /kkjk 170 ds v/khu leLr vk/kkjksa ij fojks/k djus dh vuqKk vf/kdj.k ls çkIr ugha dh xbZ & mldk çfrokn dsoy /kkjk 149 ¼2½ ds v/khu lhfer gS & chekdrkZ mis{kk vkSj ek=k ds ç’u ij vihy Qkby ugha dj ldrkA 1995 ts ,y ts 167 voyafcrA ¿iSjk 2
¼2½ eksVj ;ku vf/kfu;e] 1988 & /kkjk 173 rFkk 170 & chekdrkZ }kjk çR;sd ç’u ij çfrokn dh vuqKk çkIr ugha dh xbZ & og mis{kk vkSj ek=k ds ç’u ij vihy Qkby ugha dj ldrkA 1995 ts ,y ts 167 voyafcrA ¿iSjk 2
¼3½ eksVj ;ku vf/kfu;e] 1988 & /kkjk 173 & flfoy çfØ;k lafgrk] 1908 & vk-41 fu- 22 & vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 173 ds v/khu vihy & lafgrk ds vk- 41 fu- 22 ds v/khu çR;k{ksi fd;k tk ldrk gSA 1968 ts ,y ts 189] , vkb vkj 1977 jkt- 121] , vkb vkj 1980 fg-ç- 16 rFkk , vkb vkj 1983 vka-ç- 297 voyafcrA ¿iSjk 6
¼4½ flfoy çfØ;k lafgrk] 1908 & vk-41 fu-22 & eksVj ;ku vf/kfu;e] 1988 & /kkjk 173 & vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 173 ds v/khu vihy & lafgrk ds vk-41 fu-22 ds v/khu çR;k{ksi fd;k tk ldrk gSA 1968 ts ,y ts 189] , vkb vkj 1977 jkt- 121] , vkb vkj 1980 fg-ç- 16 rFkk , vkb vkj 1983 vka-ç- 297 voyafcrA ¿iSjk 6
¼5½ flfoy çfØ;k lafgrk] 1908 & vk-41 fu-22 ¼4½ & eksVj ;ku vf/kfu;e] 1988 & /kkjk 173 rFkk 149 ¼2½ & vihy vafre lquokbZ ds i‘pkr~ ugha gksus ds :Ik esa [kkfjt & çR;k{ksi] vihy ds lkFk ugha gksrk & ;g lquk tkuk gksxk rFkk varr% xq.kkxq.k ij fofuf’fpr fd;k tkuk gksxkA
¼6½ eksVj ;ku vf/kfu;e] 1988 & /kkjk 173 rFkk 149 ¼2½ & flfoy çfØ;k lafgrk] 1908 & vk-41 fu-22 ¼4½ & eksVj ;ku vf/kfu;e ds v/khu vihy lquh xbZ rFkk pykus ;ksX; ugha gksus ds :Ik esa [kkfjt & çR;k{ksi vihy ds lkFk lekIr ugha gksrk & ;g lquk tkuk gksxk rFkk varr% xq.kkxq.k ij fofuf’fpr fd;k tkuk gksxkA
flfoy çfØ;k lafgrk ds vk-41 fu-22 ds mica/k eksVj ;ku vf/kfu;e ds v/khu vihyksa ij dsoy flfoy U;k;ky; dh LFkkfir rFkk çfØ;k ds :I esa ykxw fd, tkrs gSaA fl-ç-la- ds vk- 41 fu- 22 ds mica/k eksVj ;ku vf/kfu;e ds v/khu dh xbZ vihyksa ij vfrfu;efu"Bk ls ykxw ugha fd, tk ldrsA geus fl-ç-la-ds vk-41 fu- 22 ds mifu;e ¼4½ dk Hkh lko/kkuhiwoZd v/;;u fd;k gSA çFken`"V;k] gekjk fu"d"kZ gS fd vk-41 fu-22 esa mifu;e ¼4½ vf/kd lko/kkuh ds vfHkçk; ls lekfo"V fd;k x;k gS ftlls dh vihy ds çR;kgj.k vFkok O;fDrØe esa [kkfjt gksus dh laHkkO;rkvksa esa çR;k{ksi vkxs pykuk vuqKkr fd;k tk ldsA blfy,] fl-ç-la- ds vk- 41 fu- 22 ds mifu;e ¼4½ esa vihy [kkfjt fd, tkus dh leLr laHkO;rk,¡ lfEefyr ugha gSaA ;gk¡ vihy] lqus tkus ds i‘pkr~ bl vk/kkj ij [kkfjt dh xbZ gS fd vihykFkhZ dks miyC/k çfrokn lhfer gSA blfy,] çR;k{ksi lquk tkuk gksxk] og vihy ds lkFk lekIr ugha gksrkA tc vihy Qkby dh tkrh gS vkSj xzg.k ds i‘pkr vihy dh lwpuk tkjh dh tkrh gS] rc ;g vfHkfu/kkZfjr ugha fd;k tk ldrk fd vihy vkjaHk ls ukfLr FkhA 1 ¼1989½ , lh lh 191 myVk x;kA çdh.kZ vihy Ø- 95@95 çHksfnrA , vkb vkj 1979 dy] 152 voyafcrA ¼1912½ 34 vkb ,y vkj byk- 140] ¼1909½ 4 vkb lh 625] ¼1898½ 12 enzkl 35] , vkb vkj 1982 byk- 296] , vkb vkj 1952 byk- 942 rFkk , vkb vkj 1951 f"keyk 170 fufnZ"VA ¿iSjk 3] 4 rFkk 10
D.M. Dharmadhikari, J.--1. This appeal has been preferred by the Insurance Company, named and described in the cause-title, against the award of the Claims Tribunal dated 23.3.1993 passed under the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The appeal has been filed assailing the finding of negligence against the driver of the vehicle and on quantum of compensation.
2. On being asked the learned counsel for the Insurance Company could not point out that in the course of proceedings before the Tribunal any permission to defend, the claimant's action was sought from the Tribunal as required by the provisions of section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, for short 'the Act of 1988', corresponding to section 110CC of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, for short, 'the Act of 1939'. It is also not disputed that except in contingencies covered by section 170 (supra), the defences open to the Insurance Company are limited to those mentioned in section 149 (2) of the Act of 1988, corresponding to section 96 (2) of the Act of 1939. The limited defences open to the Insurance Company are only based on the terms and conditions of the policy of Insurance. A Division Bench of this Court in the case - United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v.
Smt. Pratibha Rathi & others (1995 JLJ 167) has held that in the absence of permission to defend on all grounds under section 170 of the Act of 1988, the Insurance Company cannot appeal on the issues of negligence and quantum. The appeal at the instance of the Insurance Company is, therefore, on the grounds raised on negligence and quantum cannot be heard and the same will have to be dismissed on the above short ground.
3. Learned counsel for the respondents, who are claimants, then stood up to press their cross-objections in which they have claimed enhancement of the amount of compensation.
3-A. Learned counsel for the appellant, Insurance Company, there upon submitted that since the appeal is being dismissed as not maintainable on the ground of quantum and negligence, the cross-objection also could not be heard. The argument is that where the appeal itself is held as not maintainable, the cross-objection cannot survive and has to fall alongwith the appeal. Reliance is placed on AIR 1982 Allahabad 296 (FB) U.P. State Road Transport Corporation v. Smt. Janki Devi and others, AIR 1952 Allahabad 942 Fateh Kunwar v. Durbijai Singh (FB) and AIR (38) 1951 Simla 170 KaroraSingh v. Kartar Singh. Reliance is also placed on two single bench decisions of this Court - one by Hon. Shri S.K. Dubey, J, reported in Hansukhlal & another v. Bhagwantibai & others I (1989) ACC 191. The other, is by Hon'ble Shri Shacheendra Dwivedi, J., in Misc. Appeal No. 95/95, Ashok Kohli v. Prakash Chand & others, decided on 10.7.1995. In all the above cases cited on behalf of the appellant, it has been held that if for some reason the appeal is dismissed as barred or not maintainable, the cross-objection does not survive and has to be dismissed alongwith the appeal.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the claimants, who filed cross-objection, in reply rely on the Division Bench decision of Calcutta High Court reported in AIR 1979 Calcutta 152 M/s. Kantilal & Bros. v. Ramarani Debi & others. Reliance is also placed on two old decisions of Allahabad and Madras High Courts reported in (1912) 34 ILR Allaha. 140 Shankar Lal & another v. Sarup Lal& another and (1909) 4 Indian Cases 625 NanakBakhsh v. Wazir Singh and (1898) 12 Madras 35. On the basis of the above decisions the submission made on behalf of the claimants is that in the instant case after hearing the appellant the appeal was held untenable on the grounds of negligence and quantum and it is not a case where the appeal is either withdrawn or dismissed in default as contemplated by Sub-rule (4) to Order 41 Rule 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which reads as under:
"(4) Where, in any case in which any respondent has under this rule filed a memorandum of objection, the original appeal is
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
