Telangana High Court
Managing Director, Apsrtc, Rep. By Its ... vs V. Lavanya on 3 November, 2025
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.S.RAMACHANDRA
RAO
Cross Objections S.R.No.7595 of 2014
in
M.A.C.M.A.No.1602 of 2011
JUDGMENT:
In this order the maintainability of cross objections in
an appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle
Act,1988 is being considered.
2. This appeal has been filed by the appellant
challenging the judgment and decree dt.06-09-2010 in
O.P.No.598 of 2009 of the Motor Vehicle Accidents
Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge, Medak at
Sangareddy.
3. In the impugned judgment, the Tribunal had
directed the appellant to pay compensation of
Rs.6,32,000/- to the respondents with interest at 8% per
annum from the date of petition till date of deposit.
4. After the appeal was filed, notice in the
appeal was issued to respondents. The respondents
have filed Cross Objections S.R.No.7595 of 2014 under
Order 41 Rule 22 CPC seeking enhancement of
compensation granted by the Tribunal.
5. The learned counsel for the appellant
contended that the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act,
1988 do not permit the filing of cross objections by the
respondents in the appeal and that a Division Bench of
this Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs.
Vasireddy Sujatharani had taken the view that cross
objections are not maintainable in an appeal filed under
Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act,1988 as the said
provision did not provide for filing of cross objections.
6. The learned counsel for the cross
objectors/respondents in the appeal however contended
that such cross objections are maintainable and that a
Division Bench of this Court in Srisailam Devasthanam
Vs. Bhavani Pramilamma and Others , in a case
arising under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act,
1939, had held that cross objections can be maintained in
an appeal filed under that Act. He contended that in
National Insurance Co. Ltd., rep. by its Divisional
Manager Vs. Ganne Seshamma and Others and
New India Assurance Co. Ltd., Vijayawada Branch,
Vijayawada-2 Vs. Mohammed Ahmedunnisa and
Others this Court has also taken a view that cross
objections can be filed in an appeal filed under the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988 and that the judgment of the Division
Bench in Vasireddy Sujatharani (1 supra) was
considered by a learned Single Judge in Ganne
Seshamma (3 supra) and was dissented from. He also
placed reliance on observations of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in Ranjana Prakash & Others Vs. Divisional
Manager and Another . He further contended that
since the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is a special statute
and is silent in regard to the procedure to be followed by
the appellate Court, the appellate jurisdiction under that
Act has to be exercised in the same manner as the High
Court exercises its general appellate jurisdiction and the
appeal so filed must be regulated by the practice and
procedure of the High Court. He drew my attention to the
Rules framed by the High Court on the appellate site
which also permitted the filing of cross objections in an
appeal filed in the High Court.
7. In Ranjana Prakash & Others ( 5 supra)
the Supreme Court observed that in an appeal filed by
the Tribunal/insurer, if the High Court proposes to reduce
compensation awarded by the Tribunal, claimant can
certainly defend quantum of compensation awarded by
the Tribunal by setting out other errors or omissions in
award, which if taken note of, would show that there was
no need to reduce the amount awarded as compensation;
that the claimants need not independently challenge the
award and that fact would not come in the way of their
defending compensation awarded on other grounds; and
it would only mean that in an appeal filed by the
owner/insurer, the claimants will not be entitled to seek
enhancement of the compensation by urging any new
ground, in the absence of any cross-appeal or cross-
objections. These last observations are pointed out by
counsel for cross objectors to contend that they are
maintainable.
8. The learned counsel for the appellant
however contended that the Division Bench of this Court
in Vasireddy Sujatharani
(1 supra) had considered the provisions of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988 and had placed reliance on the
judgment of the Supreme Court in Superintending
Engineer Vs. B.Subba Reddy to come to the
conclusion that cross objections are not maintainable. He
contended that in the said Supreme Court decision,
question regarding maintainability of cross objections in
an appeal filed under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act,
1940 was considered by the Supreme Court and that the
Supreme Court had held that no right to file cross
objections was conferred under Section 39 of the
Arbitration Act, 1940 and therefore such a right cannot be
read into Section 41 of the said Act; that filing of cross
objections is not procedural in nature; and Section 41 of
the said Act merely provided that procedure of the Civil
Procedure Code,1908 would be applicable to an appeal
under Section 39 of the said Act; and therefore cross
objections by respondents in the appeal were not
maintainable. He also contended that Division Bench had
also referred to another decision of the Supreme Court in
Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Others Vs.
International Security and Intelligence Agency Ltd.
and had came to the same conclusion. He therefore
contended that the cross objections should be held not
maintainable and rejected.
9. I have noted the submissions of both sides.
10. It is true that the Division Bench of this Court
i n Vasireddy Sujatharani (1 supra) had followed the
decision of the Supreme Court in B.Subba Reddy (6
supra). It is true that the Supreme Court in the said case
has taken a view that cross objections in an appeal filed
under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 are not
maintainable on the ground that such a right to file cross
objections was not conferred by Section 39 of the Act, that
the right to file cross objections was not procedural in
nature and it cannot be read into Section 41 of the said
Act.
11. But the said decision of the Supreme Court in
B.Subba Reddy (6 supra) insofar as the said Court had
held that cross objections are not maintainable in an
appeal filed under the Arbitration Act, 1940 since such
right was not conferred under Section 39 of the said Act
and was held to be not correct in Municipal Corporation
of Delhi (7 supra). The Supreme Court in Municipal
Corporation of Delhi (7 supra) held that the form of cross
objection is a matter of procedure; it is only a manner of
exercising a right of appeal which is substantive; that it is
not merely the procedure prescribed by the Code of Civil
Procedure,1908 which has been made applicable to
proceedings under the Arbitration Act,1940 by Section 41
(d) of the said Act, but the entire body of the Code of Civil
Procedure,1908 has been made applicable to all
proceedings before the Court and to all appeals under the
Arbitration Act, 1940. It held that the provision is general
and wide in its applicability and cannot be curtailed. It
declared that to this extent, it is disagreeing with the law
laid down in B.Subba Reddy (7 supra) and that the
proposition appears to have been made widely stated in
this case.
12. The above observations of the Supreme
Court in Municipal Corporation of Delhi (7 supra) were
not noticed by the Division Bench of this Court while
deciding Vasireddy Sujatharani (1 supra) although the
judgment in Municipal Corporation of Delhi (7 supra)
was referred to in para 10 of Vasireddy Sujatharani
(1 supra).
13. The decision in Municipal Corporation of
Delhi
(7 supra) also considered the question regarding affect on
cross objections if the appeal itself is held not competent
or not maintainable. It is this latter aspect that the Division
Bench adverted to in Vasireddy Sujatharani ( 1 supra)
but not the former aspect (wherein it expressly declared
that the law laid down in B.Subba Reddy (6 supra) that
cross objections filed in an appeal under Section 39 of the
Arbitration Act, 1940 were not maintainable ,was
incorrect).
14. Since the judgment of the Division Bench in
Vasireddy Sujatharani (1 supra) has relied on the
decision in B.Subba Reddy (6 supra) insofar as the said
judgment laid down that there is no right to file cross
objections in an appeal filed under Section 39 of the
Arbitration Act, 1940 since such a right was not given
under the said provision and the said proposition of law
laid down in B. Subba Reddy (6 supra) was overruled in
Municipal Corporation of Delhi (7 supra), it appears
prima facie that the Division Bench erred in holding that
cross objections were not maintainable because there is
no provision in the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 which
permits them to be filed.
15. The learned Single Judge who decided
Gane Seshamma (3 supra) had disagreed with the view
expressed by the Division Bench in Vasireddy
Sujatharani (1 supra) by relying on the observations of
the Supreme Court in Ranjana Prakash (5 supra) referred
to supra, but he also did not notice the express overruling
of the principle in B.Subba Redy (6 supra) in Municipal
Corporation of Delhi (7 supra) to the extent that B.Subba
Reddy (6 supra) had held that no cross objections are
maintainable because the Act did not provide for them.
16. In Mohammed Ahmedunnisa (4 supra),
another single judge of this Court followed the decision in
B.Subba Reddy (6 supra) and held that cross objections
filed under Section 41 Rule 22 CPC are maintainable in
an appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles
Act, 1988. Of course in that case, the question was
"whether the appeal filed by the insurer itself was
maintainable since the appellant insurer did not seek or
obtain permission from the Tribunal at the appropriate
stage under Section 171 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
?" and "when the appeal itself is not maintainable, whether
cross objections would be maintainable?". The Bench
took the view that even if the appeal is not maintainable
for any reason, cross objections filed therein survive
independently and have to be decided by the Court on
merits independently. To the extent that the learned
Single Judge in this case relied on B.Subba Reddy (6
supra) to hold that cross objections could be filed under
Order 41 Rule 22 CPC in an appeal filed under Section
173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, he may not be right
particularly since B.Subba Reddy (6 supra) had taken the
contra view. But in view of the subsequent overruling of
law laid down in B.Subba Reddy (6 supra) in Municipal
Corporation of Delhi (7 supra), the view that cross
objections are maintainable is probably correct.
17. However, I do not wish to express any final
opinion either way. Since prima facie the view expressed
by the Supreme Court in B.Subba Reddy (6 supra) which
was followed by Division Bench in Vasireddy Sujatharani
(1 supra) was expressly declared to be incorrect in
Municipal Corporation of Delhi (7 supra), I am of the
opinion that the decision of the Division Bench in
Vasireddy Sujatharani (1 supra) requires reconsideration
by an appropriate Bench of this Court. Since the issue of
filing of cross objections in appeals filed under the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988 keeps recurring frequently, I feel that
such an authoritative pronouncement would set at rest
any conflict among the various decisions of this Court on
that aspect and bring clarity.
18. Therefore, the Registry is directed to place
this matter before the Hon'ble the Chief Justice to
consider constitution of an appropriate Division Bench/Full
Bench to decide the issue as to maintainability of cross
objections in appeals filed under the Motor Vehicles Act,
1988.
__________________________________
JUSTICE M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO
Date: 14-07-2014
Kvr
2011 (4) ALT 664
AIR 1983 AP 297
2013 (6) ALD 322
2011 (3) ALD 363
(2011) 14 S.C.C. 639
(1999) 4 S.C.C. 423
(2004) 3 S.C.C. 250
