This cross objection is filed in MFA No.22498/2010.

The MFA 22498/2010 filed by the insurer challenging the

judgment and award dated 22.01.2010 in MVC No.526/2007 on

the file of MACT, Bellary is dismissed vide order dated

16.07.2012.

The MFA Crob.704/2011 is filed by the claimants

seeking enhancement of compensation. The Tribunal awarded

Rs.7,22,432/- along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum

from the date of petition till the date of deposit. The

compensation is awarded under the following heads:

1. Loss of dependency

- Rs.6,79,932-00

2. Towards medical treatment

- Rs. 10,000-00

3. Loss of consortium

- Rs. 10,000-00

4. Loss of love and affection

- Rs. 10,000-00

5. Loss of estate

- Rs. 10,000-00

6. Funeral expenses

- Rs. 7,500-00

Total

- Rs.7,27,432-00

When

MFA

No.22498/2010

was

heard,

the

pendency of cross objection No.704/2011 was not brought to

the notice of the Court. The records would reveal that the cross

objection was also dismissed for non-compliance and the same

was subsequently restored.

Learned counsel for the insurer Sri.Ravindra R Mane

at the outset would raise preliminary objection to the

- 4 -

maintainability of the cross objection on the premise that the

appeal filed by the insurer in MFA No.22498/2010 is already

decided and dismissed and the cross abjection on its own is not

maintainable in view of the bar contained in Order 41 Rule

22(4) of CPC. Elaborating his submission Sri.Ravindra Mane

would urge that the cross objection can be heard only in the

circumstances provided under Order 41 Rule 22(4) of CPC. He

would submit that the above said provision contemplates two

situations, where cross objection can be heard when the appeal

is not pending. These two situations according to him are,

a)dismissal of appeal for non-prosecution b)withdrawal of the

appeal. He would submit that since the appeal is heard and

dismissed on merit, cross objection cannot be heard on merit

and the same has to be rejected, as not maintainable.

This Court is unable to accept such contention.

Order 41 Rule 22(4) only clarifies the position that even in the

event of dismissal for non-prosecution or withdrawal of appeal,

the cross-objection has to be heard on merit. If the contention

of Sri.Ravindra Mane is to be accepted, it is as good as saying

that dismissal for non-prosecution an appeal or withdrawal of

- 5 -

the appeal is the condition precedent for hearing the cross

objection. Such interpretation cannot be accepted.

6.

The cross objection is nothing but an appeal in the

eye of law with a slightly different form and slightly different

period of limitation as compared to the appeal. The appeal is a

statutory right, and when such right is exercised by the parties,

the same has to be heard on merit unless the same is

withdrawn or dismissed for non-prosecution.

7.

For the aforesaid reasons, rejecting the contention

of Sri.Ravindra Mane, this Court has considered the claim of the

cross objectors on merits. This Court also considered the

objection of the insurer for enhancement of compensation on

merits.

8.

The accident occurred in the year 2007. In terms of

the judgment dated 16.07.2012, the contention of the insurer

in MFA No.22498/2010 is rejected and its liability is confirmed.

9.

The claim is filed by the dependants of Raghurama

Reddy who died in motor vehicle accident. Hence, the

compensation has to be determined based on the settled

position of law in National Insurance Company Limited vs.

Pranay Sethi and others, reported in (2017) 16 Supreme

- 6 -

Court Cases 680 and Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd.,

vs. Nanu Ram and others, reported in (2018) 18

Supreme Court Cases 130.

10.

The deceased was aged 28 years. The claimants

claim that the deceased was earning Rs.8,500/- per month

cannot

be

accepted.

The

tribunal

assessed

income

at

Rs.5,000/- per month in the absence of any proof relating to

income. The accident occurred in the year 2007. As per the

chart prepared by the Karnataka State Legal Services

Authority,