The court clarified that a cross objection by an insurer regarding liability is maintainable, and compensation can be recalculated based on the claimant's disability and other factors.

JUDGMENT

Dated : 30^th January, 2025 The petitioner in OP(MV).331/2002 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thalassery is the appellant. He filed the above OP under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation for the injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 25.12.2000. According to the petitioner, while he was travelling in a scooter bearing registration No.KL-14-3761 as pillion rider, the 1^st respondent who was the rider of the motor cycle driven the same in a rash and negligent manner and the motor cycle capsized and he sustained grievous injuries. The 2^nd respondent is the insurer and 3^rd respondent is the owner of the above motor cycle. In the OP he claimed a compensation of Rs.4,00,000/-.

2. The 2^nd respondent filed a written statement admitting the insurance coverage and disputing the negligence on the part of the 1^st respondent. A further contention was taken by the 2^nd respondent that since the petitioner was a pillion rider, the 2^nd respondent is not liable to pay any compensation to the petitioner.

3. The evidence in the case consists of the oral testimony of PW1 and Exts.A1 to A6 and X1. After evaluating the evidence on record, the Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs.1,87,700/- payable jointly and severally by respondents 1 to 3. Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the petitioner preferred this appeal. At the same time, the 2^nd respondent filed a cross objection contending that the offending vehicle had only 'Act only policy' and as such, they are not liable to pay any compensation to the petitioner. Now the points that arise for consideration are the following :

(i) Whether the Cross Objection is maintainable ?

(ii) Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable ?

(iii) Whether the 2^nd respondent has any liability to indemnify the claim of the petitioner?

4. Heard Sri.M.V.Amaresan, the learned counsel for the petitioner/appellant and Sri.A.R.George, the learned Standing Counsel for the 2^nd respondent.

5. Point No.1 – At the very outset the learned counsel for the petitioner would argue that the Cross objection filed by the 2^nd respondent is not maintainable, as it does not in any way relate to the issue involved in the appeal. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner preferred the appeal for enhancement of compensation while the Cross Objection was filed claiming that there was no valid insurance policy to cover a pillion rider. In support of the above argument, he has relied upon certain precedents.

6. In the decision in Manoj Kumar v. Subramanian , 2009 ICO 2629 , in paragraph 15 and 16, a Division Bench of this Court held that :

“The basic feature emerging from the two sets of decisions is that cross appeal is maintainable only if the rights of the cross objector are directly concerned or connected in the appeal already preferred and is pending consideration. To put it more clear, when the Insurer files the appeal in the capacity as the indemnifier of the owner, for getting absolved from the liability to indemnify the owner or to have the liability limited to the specified extent as stipulated in the policy, it does not give rise to a cause of action for the claimant to seek for enhancement of the award amount by way of Cross Objection. On the other hand, as made clear by the Division Bench of this Court in 2004 (2) KLT 679, when the appeal is filed by the Insurer disputing the quantum of compensation, Cross-objection filed by the claimant seeking for further enhancement of the quantum is very much maintainable. This is obviously for the reason that the right of appeal conferred on the Insurer under the statute is only on the specified grounds as provided under Section 149 (2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, which does not take in the quantum or n