MADRAS MOTOR AND GENERAL INSURANCE CO Vs. KATANREDDI SUBBAREDDY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On 26-6-1968 a motor car proceeding towards Hyderabad collided with a stationary motor lorry at a check-post about six miles from Hyderabad. The car belonged to one Dasaradharam Reddy who was however not travelling in the car at the time of the incident. It was driven by Srinivasulu, a driver employed by the owner. Subba Reddy and Sundarami Reddy two advocates of Nellore, friends and legal advisers of the owner of the car, were travelling in the car at the time of the accident. Both received injuries. Sundarami Reddy not very seriously but Subba Reddy quite seriously - he lost the use of an eye. Subba Reddy and Sundarami Reddy filed O.P. Nos 188 and 189 of 1968 before the Motor Accidents Claims tribunal claiming compensation of Rs. 22500.00 and Rs. 4350.00 respectively. The owner and driver of the car and the insurer were impleaded as parties to the petition. The petitions were contested. It was alleged that the accident was not due to the negligence of the driver. That finding was not disputed before me. It was also claimed by the insurer that neither the terms of policy nor the provisions of the Act made the insurer liable for injuries caused to passengers travelling in the motor car. The contention was overruled by the tribunal. The tribunal awarded compensation of Rs. 8,000.00 to Subba Reddy and Rs. 1,000.00 to Sundarami Reddy. The insurers liability was fixed at Rs. 6,475.00 and Rs. 825.00 respectively. The Tribunal disallowed costs to the claimants on the ground that their claims were exaggerated. I will have to say something about this later. The insurer preferred two appeals which are before me and Subba Reddy has preferred cross objection.

(2.) Section 110-D (2) of the Motor Vehicles Act prescribes that no appeal shall lie against any award of a tribunal if the amount in dispute in the appeal is less than two thousand rupees. The compensation awarded to Sundarami Reddy was only Rs. 1000.00 and the appeal filed by the insurer was therefore valued at Rs. 1000.00 clearly the appeal was barred by S. 110-D (2). The appeal is accordingly dismissed with costs.

(3.) Before dealing with the insurers appeal against Subba Reddy, I will deal with the cross-objection filed by Subba Reddy. The learned counsel for the insurer raised an objection to the maintainability of the cross-objection. He argued that the Act made no provisions for the filing of cross-objection and that the provisions of Order 41, Rule 22 were not attracted to appeals under Section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act. The learned counsel for the cross-objector urged that once the appeal reached the High Court all the provisions in the Civil Procedure Code applicable to appeals to the High Court were automatically attracted . He also relied on the decision of the Madly Pradesh High Court in Manjula Devi v. Manjusri, 1968 ACJ 1 (Madh Pra) and that of the Delhi High Court in Delhi Transport Undertaking v. Rajkumari , 1972 ACJ 403 (Delhi).