Case Note & Summary
The case arises from a motor accident claim where the deceased, Indrajeet Yadav, aged 25 years, died in a vehicular accident. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs. 4,52,000/- to the claimants (widow, daughter, and son). The appellant, BEST Undertaking, filed a first appeal challenging the award. During the pendency of the appeal, the claimants filed a cross-objection seeking enhancement of compensation. The appellant opposed the cross-objection on the ground of limitation, arguing that it was not filed within 30 days of admission of the appeal. The court examined the provisions of Order 41 Rule 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and held that a cross-objection can be filed at any time before the hearing of the appeal, and thus the cross-objection filed on 12 June 2026 was within limitation. On merits, the court found that the Tribunal had applied a multiplier of 13 instead of 18 as per the Sarla Verma case for a deceased aged 25 years, and had not granted any amount towards future prospects. The court held that the claimants were entitled to 40% addition towards future prospects and the correct multiplier of 18. The court recomputed the compensation, enhancing it to Rs. 9,72,000/- with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of claim petition. The appeal filed by BEST Undertaking was dismissed, and the cross-objection was allowed.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Cross-Objection - Limitation - Order 41 Rule 22 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Cross-objection filed by claimants after admission of appeal but before final hearing is within limitation as it can be filed at any time before hearing of appeal - Held that the cross-objection is maintainable (Paras 2-4).
B) Motor Accident Claims - Just Compensation - Multiplier and Future Prospects - Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Section 166 - Tribunal erred in applying multiplier of 13 instead of 18 for deceased aged 25 years and in not granting future prospects - Held that compensation must be recomputed with correct multiplier and addition of 40% towards future prospects (Paras 5-6).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the cross-objection filed by the claimants is within limitation and whether the compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal requires enhancement.
Final Decision
The appeal filed by BEST Undertaking is dismissed. The cross-objection filed by the claimants is allowed. The compensation is enhanced to Rs. 9,72,000/- with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of claim petition till realization. The appellant is directed to deposit the enhanced amount within four weeks.
Law Points
- Cross-objection limitation
- Order 41 Rule 22 CPC
- Motor Accident Claims
- Multiplier
- Future Prospects
- Just Compensation
Case Details
2026 LawText (BOM) (07) 75
First Appeal No. 343 of 2012 with Cross Objection (St.) No. 16313 of 2026 with Civil Application No. 354 of 2012
Mrs. Karishma Jhaveri i/by M/s. Navdeep Vora & Associates for the appellant (BEST Undertaking), Mr. T. J. Mendon for the respondents
The General Manager, Bombay Electric Supply and Transport Undertaking
Usha Indrajeet Yadav, Kum. Sharmila Indrajeet Yadav, Rahul Indrajeet Yadav
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
First appeal against award of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and cross-objection for enhancement of compensation.
Remedy Sought
Appellant sought reduction of compensation; claimants sought enhancement of compensation.
Filing Reason
Dissatisfaction with the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal.
Previous Decisions
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal awarded Rs. 4,52,000/- to the claimants.
Issues
Whether the cross-objection filed by the claimants is within limitation under Order 41 Rule 22 CPC?
Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper?
Submissions/Arguments
Appellant argued that cross-objection was not filed within 30 days from admission of appeal and is barred by limitation.
Claimants argued that cross-objection was filed before final hearing and is within limitation as per Order 41 Rule 22 CPC.
Claimants submitted that Tribunal erred in applying multiplier of 13 instead of 18 and in not granting future prospects.
Ratio Decidendi
A cross-objection under Order 41 Rule 22 CPC can be filed at any time before the hearing of the appeal and is not required to be filed within 30 days of admission. In motor accident claims, the multiplier must be as per the age of the deceased as per Sarla Verma, and future prospects must be added at 40% for self-employed persons below 40 years.
Judgment Excerpts
In the cross objection, the claimants have stated that the first appeal was admitted on 31 March, 2023 and notified for final hearing on 23 June 2026 and therefore cross objection having been filed on 12 June 2026 is within the period of limitation.
The Tribunal has applied multiplier of 13 whereas the deceased was aged 25 years and therefore, as per the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation, the multiplier applicable is 18.
Procedural History
The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal awarded compensation on an unspecified date. The appellant filed First Appeal No. 343 of 2012 on an unspecified date. The appeal was admitted on 31 March 2023. On 12 June 2026, the claimants filed Cross Objection (St.) No. 16313 of 2026. The appeal was heard on 22 July 2026.
Acts & Sections
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Order 41 Rule 22
- Motor Vehicles Act, 1988: Section 166
