URMILA DEVI & ORS. versus BRANCH MANAGER, NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. & ANR.

Citation: [2020] 3 S.C.R. 498 · Decided: 30-01-2020 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.A. BOBDE, BHUSHAN RAMKRISHNA GAVAI, SURYA KANT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
498
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 3 S.C.R.
URMILA DEVI & ORS.
v.
BRANCH MANAGER, NATIONAL INSURANCE
COMPANY LTD. & ANR.
(Civil Appeal No. 838 of 2020)
JANUARY 30, 2020
[S. A. BOBDE, CJI, B. R. GAVAI AND SURYA KANT, JJ.]
Motors Vehicles Act, 1988 – s.173 – Appeal – Cross objections
– Maintainability of – Husband of claimant-appellant no.1 (who
was also father of appellant nos.2-4 & son of appellant no.5) met
with accident – MACT directed Insurance Company to pay
Rs.2,47,500/- to the claimants – Appeal filed by Insurance Company
before High Court was dismissed in default – Cross objection filed
therein by the appellants was dismissed as not maintainable – Held:
In view of r.249 of 1992 Motor Vehicle Rules, the High Court rightly
held that the claimants were entitled to file cross-objection – However,
it restricted said right to file objection only when an appeal is filed
by the insurance company challenging the quantum of compensation
and not just its liability to pay compensation as in the present case
– s.173 provides that any person aggrieved by an award of a Claims
Tribunal, subject to Sub-s.(2) thereof, may prefer an appeal to High
Court – r.249(3) shows that save as provided in sub-rules (1) and
(2), the provisions of Or.XLI and Or.XXI, CPC shall apply mutatis
mutandis to appeals preferred to the High Court u/s.173 – Conjoint
reading of s.173; r.249 and Or. XLI, r.22 reveals that there is no
restriction on the right to appeal of any of the parties – Any party
aggrieved by any part of the award would be entitled to prefer an
appeal – Thus, any respondent, though he may not have appealed
from any part of the decree, apart from supporting the finding in
his favour, is also entitled to take any cross-objection to the decree
which he could have taken by way of appeal – Further, r.22(4) of
Or. XLI specifically provides that even if original appeal is withdrawn
or dismissed for default, the cross-objection would nevertheless be
heard and determined – Therefore, even if the appeal of the
Insurance Company was dismissed in default and it was not
interested to revive the appeal, still the High Court was required to
[2020] 3 S.C.R. 498
498
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
499
decide the cross-objection of appellants on merits – Impugned
judgment set aside – Matter remitted to High Court for deciding the
cross-objection on merits – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Or.
XLI, r.22; Or.XXI – Bihar Motor Vehicle Rules, 1992 – r.249 –
Arbitration Act, 1940 – s.39.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 In view of Rule 249 of the Bihar Motor Vehicle
Rules, 1992, the High Court has rightly come to a conclusion
that the claimants would be entitled to file a cross-objection.
However, it restricted the right of the claimants to file cross-
objection only when an appeal is filed by the Insurance Company
challenging quantum of compensation. It held, that when the
Insurance Company has not challenged the quantum of
compensation but only challenges its liability to pay compensation
on the ground that there is a breach of terms and condition by
the driver and/or the owner of the vehicle, the cross-objection
would not be tenable at the instance of the claimants. Section
173 of the M.V. Act provides, that any person aggrieved by an
award of a Claims Tribunal, subject to the provisions of sub-section
(2) thereof, may prefer an appeal to the High Court. The restriction
imposed under Sub-s. (2) of Section 173 is with regard to non-
filing of appeal against any award of a Claims Tribunal if the amount
in dispute in the appeal is less than ten thousand rupees. The
single judge of the High Court himself observed that in view of
Rule 249, Bihar Motor Vehicle Rules, 1992, there cannot be any
issue with regard to the tenability of the cross-objection. Sub-
rule (3) of Rule 249 of the Bihar Motor Vehicle Rules, 1992 would
show, that save as provided in sub-rules (1) and (2), the provisions
of Order XLI  and Order XXI in First Schedule to the CPC shall
apply mutatis mutandis to appeals preferred to the High Court
under Section 173 of the M.V. Act. A conjoint reading of the
provisions of Section 173 of the M.V. Act; Rule 249 of the Bihar
Motor Vehicle Rules, 1992; and Order XLI rule 22 of the CPC
would reveal, that there is no restriction on the right to appeal of
any of the parties. It is clear, that any party aggrieved by any part
of the Award would be entitled to prefer an appeal. It is also clear,
that any respondent, though he may not have appealed f

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.