V.K.Gupta, C.J. - (1.)F.A.O. No. 267 of 1993 was an appeal filed under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ('Act' for short) wherein the appellant insurer had challenged the correctness of the judgment and award dated 5.7.1993 passed by learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal- I, Kangra at Dharamshala in M.A.C.T. Case No. 45 of 1991. Based on the grounds taken in the said appeal, appellant insurer had prayed for setting aside of the aforesaid award. Vide judgment dated 25.5.2004 this court dismissed the aforesaid appeal.
(2.)In the aforesaid appeal, the claimant Lata filed the cross-objections and sought the relief of enhancement of the compensation amount inasmuch as apparently the claimant-cross-objector was not satisfied with the amount awarded by the Tribunal in the aforesaid claim petition and feeling aggrieved of the awarding of lesser amount than had been prayed for, or was expected, she sought the relief of enhancement of the compensation amount in the aforesaid cross-objections filed in the aforesaid appeal.
(3.)Whereas vide the aforesaid judgment dated 25.5.2004 this court had dismissed the aforesaid appeal filed by the appellant insurer, insofar as the cross-objections are concerned, vide order dated 26.5.2004, the single Bench of this court seized of the appeal as well as the cross-objections took notice of a preliminary objection raised by and on behalf of appellant with respect to the maintainability of the cross-objections in view of the ratio laid down by a Division Bench judgment of this court delivered on 4.9.1996 in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Rukmani Devi, F.A.O. (MVA) No. 88 of 1988 with Cross-objection No. 24 of 1989. Noticing the aforesaid preliminary objection with respect to the maintainability of the cross-objections in the light of the aforesaid Division Bench judgment of this court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Rukmani Devi (supra) the single Bench also noticed that two subsequent Division Bench judgments of this court following Rukmani Devi had also taken the same view that the cross-objections were not maintainable in an appeal filed under section 173 of the Act. However, reliance was placed by learned counsel for the cross-objector upon a Full Bench decision of Karnataka High Court in case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Prema, 2002 ACJ 1889 (Karnataka), in which a view was taken by the Full Bench of Karnataka High Court that cross-objections by the claimant for enhancement of the compensation amount, in an appeal filed by an insurance company, are maintainable. The single Bench accordingly in the aforesaid order dated 26.5.2004 feeling that the aforesaid ratio laid down by the Division Bench judgment of this court in Rukmani Devi required reconsideration by a larger Bench, referred the question of maintainability of cross-objections to a Full Bench of three Judges. It is in this background that this reference with respect to the legal question relating to the maintainability of cross-objections in an appeal filed under section 173 of the Act has come up before this Bench for consideration.