Being aggrieved by the judgment and award passed by the learned Tribunal, the Insurance Company preferred Misc.
The High Court of Patna in view of Rule 249 of the Bihar Motor Vehicles Rules, 1992 has held, that there is numberimpediment for the claimant s to file crossobjection in an appeal filed by the Insurance Company if the Insurance Company had challenged the quantum of companypensation awarded to the claimant.
Being aggrieved, the appellants are before us by way of present appeal by special leave.
3 and 4.
The Motor Vehicle Accidental Claim Tribunal hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal vide judgment and order dated 29.1.2011, rejected the companytention of the Insurance Company that the driver and owner of the vehicle had breached the terms and companyditions and while allowing the Claim Petition directed the Insurance Company to pay companypensation of Rs.2,47,500/ to the claimants in terms of the order dated 29.1.2011.
The present appeal challenges the judgment and order dated 21.01.2016 passed by the learned single judge of the High Court of Patna in Miscellaneous Appeal No.521 of 2011 thereby, holding the crossobjection of the claimant to be number maintainable.
Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by CHARANJEET KAUR Date 2020.01.30 171356 IST Reason The facts, bare necessary, for decision of the present appeal, are as under On 2.5.2008, Sanjay Tanti, husband of appellant No.1 father of appellant Nos.
The appellants filed a Claim Petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 hereinafter referred to as the M.V. Act .
2 to 4 and son of appellant No.5 met with an accident while he was travelling from Ladma to Goradih by a Tata Maxi.
The appeal was, as such, disposed of by the High Court.
Appeal No.521 of 2011 before the High Court at Patna companytending therein, that the learned Tribunal had erroneously fastened the liability on it.
In the said appeal, a crossobjection came to be filed by the appellants herein.
The claim of the Insurance Company was that the driver and owner of the vehicle had breached the terms and companyditions of the insurance policy and, as such, they are number liable for payment of companypensation.
Insofar as the crossobjection of the appellants herein the claimants is companycerned, the High Court vide the impugned judgment and order dated 21.01.2016 held, that when the appeal filed by the Insurance Company is only restricted to denial of its liability to make the payment of companypensation then in such case the cross objection at the behest of the claimants in the shape of appeal would number be tenable.
When the appeal came up for hearing, it was numbericed that the appeal was dismissed for want of office objections and the companynsel for the appellants therein Insurance Company stated that the appellants Insurance Company were number interested in reviving the appeal.
Heard the learned companynsels for the parties.
Leave granted.
Per companytra, the learned companynsel for the Insurance Company submit, that the High Court has rightly rejected the crossobjection of the appellants herein.
The owner of the vehicle was joined as Opponent No.1 the driver of the vehicle was joined as Opponent No.2 whereas, the National Insurance Company Limited hereinafter referred to as the Insurance Company were joined as Opponent Nos.
