Summary
The Supreme Court held that claimants’ cross-objections in a motor-accident appeal were maintainable even though the insurer disputed liability rather than quantum. The applicable Bihar rules imported Order XLI CPC, allowing a respondent to challenge any appealable adverse part of the award. Dismissal of the insurer’s appeal for default and its decision not to revive it did not extinguish the cross-objections, which were remitted for decision on merits.
Issues
- Whether a claimant’s cross-objection depended on the insurer challenging quantum rather than only liability.
- Whether the cross-objection survived dismissal for default of the insurer’s appeal.
Provisions considered
- Section 173, Motor Vehicles Act, 1988The appellate right was not restricted to particular categories of grievances as under the arbitration precedent, subject to statutory threshold and limitation requirements. (¶¶ 13, 22, 24)
- Rule 249, Bihar Motor Vehicles Rules, 1992Sub-rule (3) imported the relevant CPC appellate procedure. (¶¶ 14, 23, 24)
- Order XLI Rule 22, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908Cross-objections could raise an appealable grievance and survived withdrawal or dismissal for default of the original appeal under sub-rule (4). (¶¶ 13, 24, 25, 27)
Held
- A cross-objection is a procedural mode of exercising the substantive right of appeal. The arbitration precedent’s restrictions arose from that statute’s limited appealable categories and did not justify restricting the claimants here according to the grounds advanced by the insurer. (¶¶ 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22)
- Reading Section 173, Rule 249 and Order XLI Rule 22 together, an aggrieved respondent could challenge an adverse part of the award which could have been appealed. The High Court’s distinction between liability-only and quantum appeals was erroneous; the insurer had also challenged the entire award and impleaded the claimants. (¶¶ 23, 24, 25, 26)
- Rule 22(4) expressly preserved determination of cross-objections after withdrawal or dismissal for default of the original appeal. The insurer’s lack of interest in revival therefore did not dispense with deciding the claimants’ cross-objections on merits. (¶ 27)
Result
Appeal allowed; order rejecting the cross-objections as unmaintainable set aside and matter remitted to the High Court for their determination on merits. No order as to costs.