Judgment :- 1. This appeal arises out of the order passed of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal Ramanathapuram at Madurai in M.C.O.P. No. 47/1983. 2. The petitioners in their petition contend as follows: The first petitioner is the wife and petitioners 2 to 4 are the children to the deceased Thangavelu. Thangavelu aged 37 years was earning a sum of Rs. 1,200/- per month in his business. On 28.2.1981, Thangavelu and four others were proceeding to Madurai in the car belonging to Kanthamani Chellayya. At that, time the bus belonging to the first respondent bearing registration No. TNA 17 was driven in a rash and negligent manner and it came from the opposite side and dashed against the car in which Thangavelu was travelling. Thangavelu died in the accident. The petitioners who are the dependents, have lost the sole bread-winner and they are unable to do the business carried on by Thangavelu in Hardwares. The petitioners therefore make a claim for Rs. 1,50,000/- as compensation. 3. The first respondent, the owner or the bus, in his counter has contended that the bus was driven slowly and carefully by its driver. On 28.2.1981 at about 9.45 AM, when the bus was nearing Sinnambu Iruppu, the driver saw a double bullock cart coming in the opposite direction and there was a Jeep behind it. He has slowed down the bus and while he was crossing the cart, the car bearing registration No. TNY 5105 which came from behind the jeep in a rash and negligent manner attempted to overtake the jeep. On seeing the same, the bus driver stopped the bus. Yet, the ambassador car dashed against the stationary bus. On the complaint given by the bus driver a case was also registered against the driver of the car. The driver of the car Thangavelu is a close friend of the owner of the vehicle. Accident was only due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the car. The first respondent is not liable for any compensation. The claim is also excessive. 4. The second respondent in their counter have contended that the accident was due to the rash and negligent driving of the car by Thangavelu and the petitioners have to prove the age and income of the deceased Thangavelu. The first respondent is not liable for any compensation. The claim is also excessive. 4. The second respondent in their counter have contended that the accident was due to the rash and negligent driving of the car by Thangavelu and the petitioners have to prove the age and income of the deceased Thangavelu. Second respondent has also contended that they are not bound to pay any compensation and the compensation claimed is excessive. 5. This MCOP was enquired along with two other MCOP in MCOP. Nos. 42/1983 and 43/1983 which were filed by the dependants of one Palanivel and dependants of deceased one Shanmugham. 6. The Tribunal gave a finding that the accident was due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus bearing registration No. TNA 17 and awarded compensation to the claimants. As far as the claimants in MCOP. No. 47/1983 is concerned, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 1,06,000/- payable by the respondents 1 and 2 and apportioned the same among the claimants. 7. Aggrieved over the same, the second respondents has preferred this appeal C.M.A. No. 559/1986. The second respondent has also preferred two other appeals viz. , C.M.A. Nos. 557 and 558/1986. The claimants in M.C.O.P. No. 43/1983 who are the dependants of the deceased Shanmugham have preferred a Memorandum of Cross objections also. C.M.A. No. 557/1986 and 558/1986 have been dismissed since the appellants in the said appeals have challenged the liability of the appellant - viz. , insurance company. The appeal C.M.A. No. 553/1986 and Memorandum of cross objections to CA. 558/1986 therefore are considered now. 8. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal which held an enquiry in M.C.O.P. No. 47/1983, has awarded a compensation of Rs. 1,06,000/- payable by the respondents 1 and 2 to the claimants, The appellant herein who is the second respondent before the tribunal does not challenge the finding of the Tribunal with regard to the manner in which the accident had taken place and the quantum of compensation awarded to the claimants. This appeal is restricted only with regard to the liability of the second respondent in M.C.O.P. According to the learned counsel appearing for the appellant the liability of the insurance company is only Rs. This appeal is restricted only with regard to the liability of the second respondent in M.C.O.P. According to the learned counsel appearing for the appellant the liability of the insurance company is only Rs. 50,000/- and the direction given by the Tribunal that the compensation payable by the respondents 1 and 2 is to be modified in such a way that the liability of the insurance company is fixed at Rs. 50,000/-. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents claimants would contend that the insurance company has not taken a plea in the counter filed by them that their liability is only Rs. 50,000/- and they have also not filed the policy of insurance and in the absence of any plea to that effect that their liability is only Rs. 50,000/- and in the absence of the production of the policy, the appellant cannot be heard to urge that their liability is only Rs. 50,000/-. In support of his above contention, the learned counsel also relies upon the decision reported in Punjab Dairy Development Corporation Ltd. v. Oriental Fire & Insurance Co. Ltd. , (1991 A.C.J. 775) wherein a Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that in the case where the insurance company has failed to plead before the tribunal that their liability is limited, the liability of the insurance company cannot be held to be limited and the insurance company is liable for the entire amount awarded. 9. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant would argue that it is to be noted that enquiry in the three claim applications were held jointly and in the counter filed by the appellant herein in the other claim petition the plea regarding their liability has been taken and the policy issued was also marked and it is only by oversight, the second respondent has failed to take the plea restricting their liability and failed to mark the policy of insurance in this MCOP. According to the learned counsel appearing for the respondents, when the vehicle of the first respondent is a common carrier and as per Section 95(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, the liability of the insurance company in respect of any one accident would only mean any one injured in an accident and therefore, the liability of the insurance company cannot be more than what has been contemplated under Section 95(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act and their liability should be restricted only to Rs. 50,000/- and relies upon an unreported decision of this court in A.A.O. No. 736 of 1977. It was a case in which the plea of the liability of the insurance company has not been raised before the Tribunal and it is only at the appellate stage in the grounds of appeal, the legal plea has been raised and in support of that plea, the policy of insurance has also been filed as additional evidence. The Bench which has decided the above appeal, has observed that since the legal plea has been raised in the grounds of appeal and the insurance policy has also been marked as additional evidence. It is not possible for them to reject the legal plea merely on the ground that the appellant has not raised the plea before the court below and on that ground, the appeal was allowed in part limiting the liability of the insurance company. The above judgment shows that the appellant has filed an application in CMP. No. 3605/1978 to mark a certified copy ofthe policy as additional evidence apart from raising the legal plea of liability 9f the insurance company in the grounds of appeal. In the case on hand, the policy of insurance in respect of this claim petition in MCOP. No. 47/1983 has not been sought to be marked as additional evidence. It may be noted that the policy has been marked in the connected claim petition. The Tribunal which has decided MCOP. No. 47/1983 was not called upon to decide the liability of the insurance company by raising a plea to that effect. No. 47/1983 has not been sought to be marked as additional evidence. It may be noted that the policy has been marked in the connected claim petition. The Tribunal which has decided MCOP. No. 47/1983 was not called upon to decide the liability of the insurance company by raising a plea to that effect. Now in the appellate stage, the appellant has chosen to challenge the finding of the tribunal by raising this plea when the liability of the insurance company is not challenged, production of policy may not be necessary, but, when the liability of the insurance company is challenged, the production of policy is very essential and it cannot be stated that by oversight the plea has not been raised and policy has not been marked and accepted the stand taken by the appellant which would virtually affect the rights of the respondent herein. The judgment rendered by the Division Bench in AAO. No. 736/1977 cannot be made applicable to the case on hand on the simple ground that in the above judgment, the insurance company has not only taken their legal plea in the grounds of appeal, but also filed the insurance policy upon which such a plea has been raised. Therefore, having failed to take a legal plea that their liability is restricted to Rs. 50,000/.-only and having failed to exhibit the policy under which they make such a claim, it is not possible to accept the stand taken by the appellant in this appeal. Therefore, I am of opinion that the appeal is without merits and is liable to be dismissed. 10. Coming to the Memorandum of Cross Objections preferred by the claimants in CoM.A. No. 558/1986, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent in the cross objections viz., the insurance company would argue that the cross objection is not maintainable, in an appeal preferred by the insurance company, in which they have challenged the order of the Tribunal only with regard to their liability and in which they have not challenged the compensation awarded to the claimants. The learned counsel appearing for the Cross Objectors would on the other hand contend that the Memorandum of Cross objections is maintainable even in a case where the insurance company has preferred an appeal challenging their liability and the owner of the vehicle has not preferred an appeal against the order passed by the Tribunal in granting compensation. 11. In an unreported judgment passed by a Division Bench of this court in the Memorandum of Cross objections in C.M.A. No. 570/1964 dated 8.4.1992. The learned judges of the Division Bench have referred to a Full Bench decision of five judges in Venkateswaralu v. Radha, A.I.R. 1950 Mad.379 = 63 L.W.32 which has been approved by the Supreme Court in Pannalal v. State of Bombay, A.I.R. 1963 S.C. 1516 and had decided that memorandum of cross objections in an appeal filed by the insurance company challenging their liability, is not maintainable. In the decision referred by the Division Bench reported in Venkateswaralu v. Radha, A.I.R. 1950 Mad.379=63 L.W. 32 the Bench had extracted the relevant passage which is as follows:— “One cannot treat an objection by a respondent in which the appellant has no interest as a Cross-Objection. The appeal is by the appellant against a respondent. The objection must be an objection by a respondent against the appellant”. The Division Bench has also extracted the decision of the Supreme Court in Pannalal v. State of Bombay, A.I.R. 1963 S.C. 1516 in which the Supreme Court has made after quoting the passage referred above which is as follows:— “We think, with respect, that these observations put the matter clearly and correctly.” The decision referred in (A.I.R. 1963 S.C. 1516) approving the passage referred by the Full Bench squarely applies to the case on hand Since the appeal AAO. No. 558/1 986 has been preferred by the insurance company, only on challenging their liability under the policy of Insurance and it is not an appeal against the order passed by the Tribunal deciding the negligence part, and the quantum awarded to the claimants. The Memorandum of Cross objection preferred by the claimants has nothing to do with the decision which may be rendered in C.M.A No. 553/1 986. The Memorandum of Cross objection preferred by the claimants has nothing to do with the decision which may be rendered in C.M.A No. 553/1 986. Whatever may be the compensation that may be awarded when once the liability of the insurance company is decided, it cannot be challenged and therefore the Cross objections can not have any say in the matter regarding the liability of the insurance company. In that View, I am of opinion that the memorandum of Objections is not maintainab1eand the same has to be dismissed. 12. In the result, CMA. No. 559/1 986 and Memorandum of Cross objections in C.M.A. No. 558/1986 are dismissed. No costs.