Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose from a motor accident claim filed by the dependants of a deceased person before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal at Chittoor. The claimant family consisted of the widow, minor children, and mother of the deceased, while the appellant was the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, represented by its Managing Director. The Tribunal by award dated 03.07.2012 in M.V.O.P.No.142 of 2008 awarded compensation of Rs.4,79,194/- against a claim of Rs.4,00,000/-. The appellant, aggrieved by the liability and quantum, filed the present miscellaneous appeal under Order 41 CPC before the High Court, along with applications for condonation of delay and stay of execution. During the hearing, the appellant's counsel stated that the appellant intended to withdraw the appeal unconditionally. The respondents/claimants opposed the withdrawal, contending that under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the appellate court has the power and duty to examine the just and adequate nature of compensation even in the absence of an appeal or cross-objections by the claimants. They relied on the Supreme Court decision in Surekha and Others v. Santosh and Others and a Division Bench decision in National Insurance Company Limited v. E. Suseelamma and Others for the proposition that compensation can be enhanced even without a claimant's appeal. They argued that the legislation is social welfare and the appellant cannot simply withdraw. The appellant's counsel countered that withdrawal is unconditional and permissible, and the respondents' objections are not tenable. The High Court framed two points: whether the appellant could withdraw despite respondents' insistence on merits, and the result of the appeal. It examined Order XXIII CPC dealing with withdrawal and adjustment of suits, noting that an appeal is a continuation of the suit. It considered Order XLI Rules 16 to 21, which deal with hearing of appeals, dismissal for default, and ex parte proceedings. The court observed that the provisions contemplate that an appeal can be heard if the appellant is present and dismissed if the appellant is absent, and that the respondents are entitled to be heard when the appellant is present. However, when the appellant is not pressing the appeal and does not insist on disposal on merits, the respondents cannot insist on disposal or dismissal on merits. The court noted that the respondents had not filed cross-objections or a cross-appeal, and their offer to pay court fee for enhanced compensation was not sound. Although precedents permit enhancement of compensation even without a claimant's appeal, the court found no scope to invoke those principles because the appellant institution chose to withdraw the appeal. The court held that since the appellant made the claimants appear before this court and then sought simple withdrawal, the claimants were entitled to reasonable costs. It considered whether interest could be awarded on costs under Section 34 CPC and referred to the Calcutta High Court decision in Janaki Nath Roy, Narendra Nath Roy & Co. Ltd. (in liquidation) v. Sambhu Nath Mullick, which held that interest can be allowed on costs not exceeding 6% per annum if provided in the judgment with a specific rate. In the result, the High Court dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, subject to payment of Rs.5,000/- as costs with interest at 6% per annum from the date of appearance of claimants in the appeal till deposit. The costs and balance amount were directed to be deposited within one month, with provision for direct deposit to the widow's bank account or deposit before the Tribunal. Miscellaneous petitions were closed. The court did not disturb the compensation award but imposed costs and interest to compensate the claimants for appearance in the appeal.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Withdrawal of Appeal - Order XXIII, Order XLI Rules 16-21 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) - An appeal is continuation of suit and CPC provisions apply to appeals under Motor Vehicles Act absent specific provisions - Court held that when appellant does not press appeal, respondents cannot insist on disposal on merits in absence of cross-objections or cross-appeal; unconditional withdrawal permissible; respondents only entitled to costs - Held that appeal dismissed as withdrawn with costs (Paras 7-14). B) Motor Vehicles Act - Just and Adequate Compensation - Section 173 Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Appellate court can examine just compensation even without claimant appeal, but principles not invocable when appellant withdraws - Court referred to Surekha and Suseelamma but found no scope as appellant intended withdrawal; respondents not precluded from filing cross-objections/cross-appeal - Held that withdrawal allowed with costs (Paras 3,13-14). C) Costs - Interest on Costs - Section 34 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) - Court can award interest on costs not exceeding 6% per annum if provided in judgment with specific rate - Referring to Janaki Nath Roy, court awarded Rs.5,000/- costs with 6% interest from date of appearance of claimants in appeal till deposit - Held that costs and interest are payable within one month, direct deposit to claimant's bank or before MACT (Paras 15-16). D) Social Welfare Legislation - Motor Accidents Claims - Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Motor Vehicles Act is social welfare legislation and claimants incur expenses for appearance - Court considered purpose and intendment of legislation and awarded costs to avoid simple withdrawal without compensating claimants - Held that claimants entitled to costs (Paras 15-16).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the appellant can withdraw the appeal and whether respondents can insist on disposal on merits in absence of cross-appeal/cross-objections; whether costs and interest on costs can be awarded.
Final Decision
The appeal was dismissed as withdrawn, subject to payment of Rs.5,000/- as costs with interest at 6% per annum from the date of appearance of claimants in the appeal till the date of deposit. The costs and balance amount payable by appellant were directed to be deposited within one month. If claimant No.1 (wife of deceased) furnished bank account number within 15 days, appellant was to deposit directly into that account; otherwise appellant was to deposit before the learned MACT and claimant No.1 was entitled to withdraw at once on deposit. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the appeal stood closed.
Law Points
- Appeal is continuation of suit
- CPC provisions apply to Motor Vehicles Act appeals absent specific provision
- Order XLI Rule 17 dismissal for default not on merits
- appellant not pressing appeal respondents cannot insist on merits without cross-objections/cross-appeal
- respondents entitled to costs
- interest on costs permissible under Section 34 CPC at not exceeding 6% per annum if provided in judgment
- Motor Vehicles Act is social welfare legislation
