Judgment :- P.R. Ramachandra Menon, J. Whether a ‘Cross Objection’ will lie at the instance of the ‘Insured’, so as to negate the right of recovery conferred over the Insurer in respect of the liability, in an appeal preferred by the Claimant for enhancement, is the primary question to be considered in these proceedings. 2. The appeal arises from the accident occurred on 18.05.2000, when two motor cycles collided with each other causing injuries to the riders of the motor cycles, which led to the claim petitions preferred against the parties of the other vehicle, attributing negligence on the rider of the said vehicle. The first respondent who was stated as owner of the vehicle bearing No.KL-01-A3936 filed written statement contending that he was not the actual owner of the vehicle; that the ownership of vehicle was transferred to the 2nd respondent as on the date of the accident, that the vehicle was got released from the Police by none other 2nd respondent; simultaneously pointing out that the accident was only because of the negligence on the part of the rider of the other motor cycle, i.e., the claimant himself. The 2nd respondent filed written statement disputing the negligence attributed on him stating that the motor cycle bearing No.KL-01-3936 was actually ridden by the 1st respondent and that the accident was only because of the negligence on the part of the claimant who was riding the other motor cycle and further that the compensation claimed was very much on the higher side. 3. The 3rd respondent who is the insurer of the vehicle bearing No.KL-01-3936 contested the claim on many a ground, including negligence; simultaneously contending that the 2nd respondent had no driving licence and that there was clear violation of the statutory/policy condition. The 4th and 5th respondents also disputed the claim by filing separate written statements. The evidence consists of the oral testimony of PW1, the claimant and Exts.A1 to A7 produced from his side, while Ext.B1, is a true copy of the Policy issued by the 3rd respondent/Insurer. On conclusion of the trial, the Tribunal arrived at a finding that the vehicle was actually owned by the 1st respondent, being the registered owner of the vehicle as revealed in the Police records and the pleadings and available testimony. It was also observed that the concerned motor cycle was in fact being ridden by the 2nd respondent. On conclusion of the trial, the Tribunal arrived at a finding that the vehicle was actually owned by the 1st respondent, being the registered owner of the vehicle as revealed in the Police records and the pleadings and available testimony. It was also observed that the concerned motor cycle was in fact being ridden by the 2nd respondent. Referring to the steps taken by the Insurer of the said vehicle by filing I.A.2029/2001 calling upon for production of driving licence and as to the failure on the part of the concerned party, adverse inference was drawn and it was accordingly held that there was violation of the statutory/policy condition as contended from the part of the 3rd respondent/Insurer. 4. Coming to the quantum of compensation payable, the Tribunal, after referring to Ext.A3 wound certificate, observed in paragraph 11 of the Award that there was a compound fracture to the right tibia and fibula and ‘re-fracture’ of an old fracture to the right leg, besides other injuries. However, the permanent disability certified as 40% by the Medical Board, Thiruvananthapuram vide Ext.A7 was not accepted by the Tribunal, for want of better evidence; whereby permanent disability was refixed by the Tribunal as 10%. As against the contention of the claimant that he was having a monthly income of Rs.4,000/- being a screen printer, the Tribunal chose to adopt a notional figure of Rs.2,000/- per month, for want of any legally acceptable evidence adduced from his side. Considering the fact that the claimant’s age was 28 years, appropriate multiplier was fixed as ‘18’ as provided under the 2nd schedule to S.163A of the Motor Vehicles Act. 5. After evaluating the facts and circumstances, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.12,000/- towards pain and sufferings and taking note of the hospitalization for a period of 4 months and 17 days, loss of earning for 4 months was awarded at Rs.8,000/-, besides granting Rs.1,000/- towards the transportation expenses, Rs.500/-towards the damage to clothing, Rs.8,000/- towards medical expenses as covered by Ext.A6 bills, a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards loss of amenities and enjoyment in life and a further sum of Rs.45,000/- towards the permanent disability; thus fixing the total compensation payable as Rs.77,700/-. The respondents 1 to 3 were directed to satisfy the same jointly and severally with interest at the rate of 9% per annum. 6. The respondents 1 to 3 were directed to satisfy the same jointly and severally with interest at the rate of 9% per annum. 6. However, based on the specific finding that there was clear violation of the statutory/policy condition, in so far as the vehicle was caused to be ridden by the 2nd respondent without valid driving licence, the 3rd respondent/Insurer was directed to satisfy the liability, with a liberty to have it recovered later from the 1st respondent/owner. The appellant in M.A.C.A.No.744/2003 has come up before this Court, seeking for enhancement of the said amount; whereas the Cross Objection has been filed by the owner of the vehicle being aggrieved by the right reserved in favour of the insurer, to have the due amount recovered from him after satisfying the liability towards the claimant. 7. The Learned counsel appearing for the claimant/appellant submits that there is absolutely no rationale for the Tribunal to have reduced the permanent disability of 40% certified by the Medical Board to 10% and that the reliance is placed on Exts.A3, A4 and A5 in this regard is not correct or proper. It is seen from the materials on record that the correctness of Ext.A7 Medical disability certificate was never subjected to challenge from the part of the respondents before the Tribunal and nobody was examined from their side in this regard. However, it was not obligatory on the part of the Tribunal to have simply accepted Ext.A7 disability certificate for awarding the entire compensation as sought for; particular when it was not supported by other legally acceptable evidence, to prove the extent of disability and the consequences resulted. However we find that the reduction of percentage of disability to 10% (i.e., to 1/4th) is not correct or proper in view of the gravity of the injuries and the consequences resulted as taken note of and discussed in para.11 of the Award. Accordingly, we re-fix the permanent disability as 15%, whereby the claimant is found as eligible to obtain a further sum of Rs.21,500/- under this head. We do not find it necessary to modify the amounts awarded by the Tribunal under any other heads. 8. Accordingly, we re-fix the permanent disability as 15%, whereby the claimant is found as eligible to obtain a further sum of Rs.21,500/- under this head. We do not find it necessary to modify the amounts awarded by the Tribunal under any other heads. 8. Coming to the Cross Objection, the prayer is to set aside the impugned Award passed by the MACT, Neyyattinkara against the owner of the vehicle, whereby the Insurer was permitted to get the amount recovered from him after satisfying the liability to the claimant. Along with the Cross Objection, the Cross Objector/Insured has also filed an I.A.3642/2004 calling for the originals of Annexures 1 and 2, which are photocopies of the driving licence stated as possessed by the 2nd respondent and the ‘policy’ issued in favour of the 2nd respondent. The contention of the Cross Objector is with specific reference to the written statement filed before the Tribunal that he had already sold the vehicle to the 2nd respondent much prior to the date of the accident, that the vehicle was got released from the custody of the Police by none other than the 2nd respondent and further that the Policy itself was issued by the Insurer in the name of the 2nd respondent. 9. It is also very much relevant to note that none of the grounds raised in the ‘cross objection’ does seek to reduce the quantum awarded by the Tribunal; which on the other hand has been sought to be enhanced in the appeal preferred by the claimant. In other words, the ‘cross objection’ has been filed seeking to set aside the direction passed by the Tribunal enabling the Insurer to get the amount recovered from the registered owner/cross objector and it is not raised against the benefits awarded in favour of the claimant, i.e., the appellant in M.A.C.A.744/2003. Maintainability of such cross objection seeking for a relief against the Insurer has to be considered in detail; particularly when no appeal has been preferred by the Insurance Company. 10. The learned counsel for the 3rd respondent/Insurer submits that the ‘cross objection’ is not maintainable in an appeal arising from an Award passed by the MACT; for the reason that the enabling provision under O.XLI R.22 is not made applicable to the proceedings before the Tribunal, having not been specifically incorporated under R.395 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989. 11. 11. True, R.395 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules does not specifically mention about the appellate provisions under O.XLI CPC. This presumably might be for the reason that the right of appeal is separately provided under S.173 of the Motor Vehicles Act. But what is provided under S.173 of the Act, is only the right of appeal and the procedure in considering/dealing with the appeal is not separately provided any where under the Act or under the Rules. Though the rigour of the CPC, as in the case of Evidence Act may not be applicable to the Tribunal, being not a “Court”, there is no bar in adopting the procedure; particularly when several contingencies may arise during the pendency of the appeal including production of additional documents in evidence as provided under O.XLI R.27; setting aside the exparte order/Award, impleadment of the legal heirs etc. 12. A question arose for consideration of this Court earlier, as to whether the amount deposited before the Tribunal could be appropriated in the manner as provided under O.XXI of the C.P.C. The contention raised before this Court was that, since Rs.395 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules did not mention O.XXI of the CPC as applicable, the manner of appropriation of the amounts in deposit as contemplated under the CPC could not be invoked to the proceedings before the Tribunal. After considering the position in detail, a Division Bench of this Court in Ramankutty Menon v. M.A.C.T., Ernakulam in (2000 (2) KLT 211) held that the stipulations regarding the appropriation of the amount in deposit as provided under O.XXI are very much applicable to the proceedings before the Tribunal as well. This being the position, non-mentioning of O.XLI R.22 in R.395 of the Kerala Motor Vehicles Rules cannot be said as fatal. This is more so, when sustainability of the ‘cross objection’ is held as maintainable vide decisions rendered by the Apex Court and also by this Court including the decision rendered by a Division Bench of this Court in Oriental Insurance Company v. Usha Gopalakrishnan (2004 (2) KLT 679). This being the position, the contention raised by the 3rd respondent/Insurer that no cross objection is maintainable under any circumstance is not correct or sustainable and ‘cross objection’ is very much held as maintainable in appropriate cases. 13. This being the position, the contention raised by the 3rd respondent/Insurer that no cross objection is maintainable under any circumstance is not correct or sustainable and ‘cross objection’ is very much held as maintainable in appropriate cases. 13. Coming to the case in hand, as to the maintainability of the ‘cross objection’ filed by the insured against the rights and liberties of the Insurer, in the appeal preferred by the claimant for enhancement, the issue has to be considered on two different counts; namely; 1) Whether it is sustainable as against the claimant for reducing the compensation awarded and 2) As against the Insurer, who has been given the right of recovery from owner/cross objector. 14. With regard to the scope cross objections, it has been held by different High Courts that no cross appeal will lie for enhancement of compensation in an appeal preferred by the insurer. Similar view was taken by a Division Bench of this Court in New India Insurance Company Ltd. v. Kunhiraman Nambiar (1994 (1) KLT 956); which was followed in Oriental Insurance Company v. Mary Pushpa (1996 (1) KLT 806). It was after referring to the above decision, that another Division Bench of this Court in Oriental Insurance Company v. Usha Gopalakrishnan (2004 (2) KLT 679) held that cross appeal under O.XLI R.22 preferred by the claimant is very much maintainable in an appeal preferred by the insurer challenging the ‘quantum of compensation’. 15. The basic feature emerging from the two sets of decisions is that cross appeal is maintainable only if the rights of the cross objector are directly concerned or connected in the appeal already preferred and is pending consideration. To put it more clear, when the Insurer files the appeal in the capacity as the indemnifier of the owner, for getting absolved from the liability to indemnify the owner or to have the liability limited to the specified extent as stipulated in the policy, it does not give rise to a cause of action for the claimant to seek for enhancement of the award amount by way of cross objection. On the other hand as made clear by the Division Bench of this Court in 2004 (2) KLT 679, when the appeal is filed by the Insurer disputing the quantum of compensation, cross objection filed by the claimant seeking for further enhancement of the quantum is very much maintainable. On the other hand as made clear by the Division Bench of this Court in 2004 (2) KLT 679, when the appeal is filed by the Insurer disputing the quantum of compensation, cross objection filed by the claimant seeking for further enhancement of the quantum is very much maintainable. This is obviously for the reason that the right of appeal conferred on the insurer under the statute is only on the specified grounds as provided under S.149(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, which does not take in the quantum or negligence. As such, when an appeal is preferred by the Insurer under the statutory grounds of defence mentioned under S.149(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, no cross appeal will lie at the instance of claimant for enhancement. If the insurer has filed the appeal on all grounds by virtue of having obtained permission to have wider defence under S.170 of the Motor Vehicles Act or on the basis of the ‘Reservation Clause’mentioned in the Policy enabling to contest the matter on behalf of the Insured as well, ‘cross objection’ is very much liable to be entertained. 16. In the instant case, as mentioned hereinbefore, the appeal has been preferred not by the Insurer: but by the claimant, for enhancement. Since the owner of the vehicle has been primarily held liable to satisfy the compensation, cross objection is very much maintainable against the claimant/appellant in M.A.C.A.No.744/2003, so as to have the quantum of compensation reduced, if supported by valid grounds. But since none of the grounds raised in the ‘cross objection’ does refer to any such case seeking to reduce the quantum of compensation awarded. There is no challenge against the quantum already fixed by the Tribunal and as such, there is no legally sustainable case as against the rights and liberties of the appellant in M.A.C.A.No.744/2003. 17. However, with regard to the rights and liberties of the Insurance Company, no appeal has been preferred by the Insurer and as such, there is no occasion for the owner of the vehicle to have filed any ‘cross objection’ which can legally come into existence, only on admission of any such appeal preferred by the Insurer. 17. However, with regard to the rights and liberties of the Insurance Company, no appeal has been preferred by the Insurer and as such, there is no occasion for the owner of the vehicle to have filed any ‘cross objection’ which can legally come into existence, only on admission of any such appeal preferred by the Insurer. Since the only prayer in the ‘cross objection’ is to negate the right of recovery reserved in favour of the Insurer and since the Insurer has admittedly not filed any appeal challenging fixation of initial liability on them, no ‘cross objection’ is maintainable as against the Insurer. 18. Incidentally, this Court has also gone through a copy of the driving licence stated as possessed by the 2nd respondent before the Tribunal; which has been produced along with L.A.No.3462/2004 in cross objection No.133/2004. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the 3rd respondent/Insurer, the name of the 2nd respondent, as it appears in the impugned Award and the proceedings before this Court is ‘James Rajan’, whereas the name shown in Annexure A1 driving licence is ‘J.N. Rajan T. Further, Annexure A1 also does not show the nature of the vehicle authorized to be driven by virtue of the said licence, for ascertaining whether the holder of the said licence was authorized to drive any motor cycle as involved in the instant case. However, since the ‘cross objection’ is dismissed, the I.A. filed along with the Cross objection also stands dismissed and as such, this Court does not find it necessary to go into the disputed facts as above. In the above facts and circumstances, the Cross Objection preferred by the Insured/owner of the vehicle is dismissed; whereas the appeal preferred by the claimant is partly allowed, granting an additional compensation of Rs.21,500/-; which shall be satisfied by the 3rd respondent/insurer with interest at the rate of 7% per annum from the date of the application, till the date of payment. It is also made clear that the said amount can be got recovered from the 1st respondent/owner of the vehicle after satisfying the liability as above, in view of the proven violation of the policy/statutory condition. No cost.