- (1.) The present appeal has raised an issue of importance namely, as to whether an appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Rules Act, 1988 before the High Court read with Rule 222 of the U.P. Motor Vehicles Rules, 1998, confers any right on the respondents in the appeal to file a Cross Objection as envisaged in terms of Order XLI Rule 22 of the C.P.C., or not.
(2.) To appreciate the controversy and the objection raised on behalf of the learned counsel for the Insurance Company to the said effect, we had passed an order on 14.11.2017 directing the matter to come up on the next day. The matter was heard by us on 15.11.2017 when we passed the following order : The matter had been heard by us yesterday and the case was adjourned on the request of Sri Manish Goyal, learned counsel for the respondent. The order passed on 14.11.2017 is extracted hereinunder : "Heard Sri Vinay Khare, learned counsel for the appellant has advanced his submissions contending that the right of appeal as conferred under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act does not envisage the right of filing of a cross objection by the respondent in the appeal. He submits that the right of a cross objection as understood Order 41 Rule 22 of the Civil Procedure Code is at par with a substantive right of appeal and unless the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 or the Rules framed thereunder create any such right for the filing of a cross objection, a cross objection would not be maintainable for which heavy reliance has been placed on the Full Bench of the Himanchal Pradesh High Court in the case of Lata Vs. United Indian Insurance Company Ltd and others,2005 2 TAC 902. He has further invited the attention of the Court to the judgments of the Apex Court in a matter arising out of Section 41 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 where according to him a similar argument had been advanced which was repelled after considering the provisions of Section 41 of the 1940 Act holding that a cross objection as contemplated under Order 41 Rule 22 would not be maintainable unless a right exists for which he has invited the attention of the Court to paragraph 25 of the said judgment. It is therefore, urged that applying the said ratio and the principles and keeping in view the provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Motor Vehicle Rules, 1988 particularly Rule 221 and Rule 222 thereof, read with Section 173 and Section 169 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, no such provision has been made for in order to enable the respondent to file a cross objection in an appeal filed under Section 173. The argument, therefore, is that the cross objection filed in the present case would not be maintainable. There is one more aspect which also requires to be answered which in our opinion has to be dealt with namely that the right to file an appeal is subject to the limitation prescribed under the Act against an award. The appeal has to be filed within 90 days. There can be a case where a party who may be intending to raise objections against any of the findings does not file an appeal within 90 days but comes up with a cross objection in a time barred appeal filed by another aggrieved party. The appeal can be filed with a prayer for condoning delay even beyond 90 days which can be entertained and the period even extend to years together. In such an event, if a respondent in the appeal comes up with a cross objection where according to the statutory provision a cross objection can be filed within 30 days of the service of notice of the appeal, but as urged if the right of cross objection is not available, and an appeal has not been filed within 90 days, then by prescription an appeal of such a person would be barred by limitation, but on the other hand he will have a right to file a cross objection in a time barred appeal. This anomaly, therefore, also deserves to be considered, while taking into account the right of a aggrieved person to file a cross objection. Sri Manish Goyal appearing for the respondent prays that the matter be taken up tomorrow. Put up tomorrow, ie. 15.11.2017. " Today Sri Archit Mehrotra holding brief of Sri Manish Goyal has invited the attention of the Court to the Full Bench judgment of this Court in the case of U.P.S.R.T.C. Vs. Smt. Janki Devi, 1982 8 AllLR 460 where the Full Bench while interpreting the provisions of Section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 on the same issue has held a Cross Objection to be maintainable in First Appeal From Order filed under the then existing provisions of the Act. It is urged that at present also the same provisions are at pari materia for consideration before this Court namely, under Section 173 of the 1988 Act read with the relevant provisions and the 1998 Rules and, therefore, the same reasoning would apply which are relevant even today. In short, the ratio of the aforesaid Full Bench judgment on all squares applies with full force on the issue raised in the present appeal on the maintainability of the Cross Objection. Learned counsel for the appellant has invited the attention of the Court to another judgment pertaining to the entertaining of a Cross Objection in a Letters Patent Appeal has stated in appeal under the High Court Rules of Madhya Pradesh which came up for interpretation before a Full Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Jabalpur Development Authority Vs. Y.S.Sachan, 2004 2 MPHT 314. He has also urged that a similar issue under the Provincial Small Causes Court came up for consideration before a learned Single Judge of this Court where also it was held that in the absence of any statutory conferment of a right of Cross Objection, the same could not be maintainable. Reliance has been placed on Ram Prasad Vs. Panna Lal, 1997 AWC 302. On a conspectus of the rival submissions that have been advanced and the decisions that have been cited at the bar, the issue deserves to be dealt with in order to settle the law, as there is no such judgment interpreting the provisions of the 1988 Act and the 1998 Rules framed thereunder and for which a reference may also have to be made to the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952. Consequently it would also be appropriate that the Stamp Reporting Section submits a report in relation to the entertaining of such Cross Objections in First Appeal From Orders filed in appeals under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 after taking into account the provisions Section 169 thereof and Rules 221 and 222 of the U.P. Motor Vehicle Rules, 1998. The Stamp Reporting Section will also take notice of the judgments referred to hereinabove and in our order dated 14.11.2017 and all such administrative orders or any other judgments touching upon the issue and then submit a comprehensive report for a consideration by this Court on the issue raised of the maintainability of the Cross Objection filed in this appeal. As a measure of precaution we also find that the Cross Objections which are filed either beyond time or even within time, they are straight away kept on the records in the pending files of appeals without any reporting in relation to the Cross Objection. In the present case also there is no report of the office on the Cross objections filed. We, therefore, direct the Registrar General to take appropriate steps for issuing instructions to all Sections where Cross Objections are filed and are preserved in the files to be sent to the Stamp Reporter for a report keeping in view the provisions of Order 41 Rule 22 C.P.C., The Limitation Act, their valuation, Court Fees or Statutory Pre-deposits and the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952 so that such Cross Objections do not have to be referred by the Court for reporting before the Stamp Reporter only when the case is listed before the Court. This will obviate consumption of unnecessary time of the Court as such report can be more conveniently obtained directly by the sending of the Cross Objection along with the records of the appeal by the concerned section to the Stamp Reporter for being reported, and then the report being placed before the Court whenever the matter is listed before it. Let this order be brought to the notice of the Registrar General and the Stamp Reporter for taking appropriate steps in view of the issues which have been raised. The Stamp Reporter as directed will submit his report by the date fixed. We had summoned the Stamp Reporter and he has prayed for a reasonable time to submit the report and accordingly, we direct the case to come up on 30.11.2017. The Stamp Reporter shall also submit a report on the Cross objection in the present case."
(3.) The case has been listed today along with the report of the Stamp Reporter dated 24.11.2017 which is extracted hereinunder : "Reference your goodself's order dated 18.11.2017 in pursuance of Hon'ble Court's order dated 15.11.2017, the Stamp Report has been required to submit his report with regard to entertaining of the cross objections in FAFO under section 173 of the M.V.Act 1988 after taking into account the provisions of section 169 thereof and rules 221 & 222 of the Motor Vehicle Rules, 1988. The S.R. very humbly submits that he has gone through the order passed by Hon'ble Court dated 15.11.2017 and found that Shri Vinay Khare learned counsel for the appellant has advanced his submission contending that the right of appeal as conferred under section 173 of M.V.Act 1988 does not envisage the right of filing of cross objections by respondent in the appeal. In this connection it is very humble submitted that the Hon'ble Apex Court has held in its decision reported in (2009) 8 Supreme Court Cases 646 that the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal is "court subordinate" to the High Court and in view of this cross objection would lie in the proceeding of appeals under section 173 of the M.V.Act 1988. So far as the Full Bench decision of this Hon'ble Court reported in A.L.R. 1982 page 460 is concern this much has not yet been overruled. Submitted for kind perusal and others.";