Judgment :- Two applications, Misc.Cvl.11793/09 filed under Order 1 Rule 10(2) r/w Section 151 CPC seeking for impleading one D.D.Paramesh S/o Devegowda. Coffee Planter, Kanchinakaldurga, Doddamagaravalli. Aldur Post, Chikkamagalur Taluk, as additional respondent No.6 to this appeal and Misc.Cvl.11793/09 filed under Order XLI Rule 27 r/w Section 151 CPC seeking for production of certain additional evidence in the above appeal and supported by affidavits sworn to by the fifth respondent in this appeal by name K.R.Chandrashekar who is also the applicant in these applications, are listed before the Court for orders. Applications figuring in an appeal filed under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by the appellant – United India Insurance Company Limited and directed against the judgment and award passed by the Additional District Judge and MACT, Chikmagalur in MVC No.478/2000 inter alia for questioning the liability on the part of the appellant – Insurance Company to make good the compensation payable in favour of respondents 1 to 3 in this appeal, who had figured as claimants in MVC No.478/2000 and who had put forth their claim on the basis that their bread earner one M.D.Mohan, a coolie by occupation had died as a consequence of an accident that took place on 9.8.2000 involving a jeep bearing Registration No.CTX-1417 owned by the fifth respondent herein and driven by the fourth respondent. The claimants therein have figured as respondents 1 to 3 in this appeal. The present appellant – Insurance Company has questioned the award of the Tribunal whereunder the Tribunal has indicated that the fifth respondent – the registered owner of the vehicle and the present appellant with whom the vehicle had been insured are jointly liable to pay the compensation of Rs.5,24,200/- in favour of the claimants along with interest at 6% per annum for the date of petition till the date of payment. It is the joint liability in so far as the Insurance Company that is sought to be questioned in this appeal by the Insurance Company contending that the policy which they had issued being an Act policy does not cover the liability of the owner in respect of the occupant of a private vehicle not meant to transport fare paying passenger. It is in such an appeal the fifth respondent who is also jointly made liable to make good the award has come up with the applications as indicated above. It is in such an appeal the fifth respondent who is also jointly made liable to make good the award has come up with the applications as indicated above. We have heard Sri.A.V.Gangadharappa, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.5 who is the applicant in these applications, Sri.A.M.Venkatesh, learned counsel for the appellant – Insurance Company and Sri.Vinod Gowda, learned counsel for Sri.Vigneshwar S. Shastri, learned counsel who appears for the proposed respondent – D.D.Paramesh. Submission of Sri.A.V.Gangadharappa is that the applicant though figured as party respondent before the Tribunal as second respondent in the claim petition, was nevertheless not served with a notice of the proceedings and the proceedings had gone on in his absence; that he had been set ex-parte before the Tribunal and thereby had been deprived of a possible defence that the applicant could have put forth before the Tribunal that in fact the application had sold the vehicle in favour of one D.D.Paramesh S/o Devagowda. Coffee Planter, Aldur Post, Chikkamagalur Taulk, on 19.6.1994, that one of the applications is for the purpose of impleading this person who had purchased the vehicle as part – respondent to the present appeal and the other application for production of additional evidence to make good this stand of the vehicle having been sold to D.D.Paramesh prior to the date of the accident and in fact to plead that the fifth respondent has no liability to make good any compensation amount in favour of the claimants. In the context of the submissions, we have also perused the records and the endorsement dated 8.2.2001 reported to the Court by the process server one D.I.Satish which indicates that the Court notice of the claim petition had been served on one K.C.Prashanth s/o Chandrashekar i.e., the fifth respondent and as on that day the said Chandrashekar was not in town, on his behalf he (K.C.Prashanth) is receiving the notice and the copy of the claim petition. In the state of this factual position, the trial Court was right in setting the fifth respondent exparte and proceeding to examine the claim petition. Be that as it may. In the state of this factual position, the trial Court was right in setting the fifth respondent exparte and proceeding to examine the claim petition. Be that as it may. We find the applications of this nature ultimately for the purpose of the applicant wriggling out of the liability fastened in terms of the judgment and award impugned in this appeal by the Insurance Company, is not tenable in law for the reason that a respondent in an appeal cannot by merely remaining as a respondent seek to get over the award or seek for modification of the award to his advantage without filing an appeal or a possible cross objection in terms of Order XLI Rule 21 CPC. Though Sri.A.V.Gangadharappa learned counsel appearing for the fifth respondent would draw our attention to Order XLI Rule 22 to submit that even a respondent who has not appealed against the judgment and decree of the court below could nevertheless seek for a modification or correction of a finding if it had gone against the particular respondent pointing out the legal or factual position and that exactly is what the applicant is seeking to achieve by filling the present applications, we fail to understand as to how this kind of submission or argument can be put forth before us, as ultimately the aim of the applicant is to get over the joint liability in terms of the award. Secondly even in respect of so-called finding which the applicant seeks to get over, it is not possible for the present applicant as the applicant had not put forth a plea before the Tribunal which had resulted in an issue being framed by the court below and a finding being recorded on such an issue, which is adverse to the applicant and which is sought to be got over or corrected even while supporting or sustaining the award, with while supporting or sustaining the award, with neither of the present applications seeking to achieve this. We find that applications of the present nature are not tenable either on facts or in law. Therefore, we reject both applications as the main purpose of both applications is one and the same. We find that applications of the present nature are not tenable either on facts or in law. Therefore, we reject both applications as the main purpose of both applications is one and the same. However, we must notice a feeble submission made by Sri.A.V.Gangadharappa to the effect that the appellant-Insurance Company had in fact satisfied an award passed in favour of another claimant-a fellow passenger who was the occupant of the very vehicle at the time of the accident and who had also put forth a case in MVC No.478/2000 and the Insurance Company has, without demur, satisfied that award and had not taken the same in appeal and only in the present case they are making the joint liability an issue and is seeking to contend that the Insurance Company has no liability in terms of the policy etc. Sri.A.M.Venkatesh, learned counsel for the appellant – Insurance Company encounters this submission by pointing out that in the first instance the amount awarded in the case was a meager sum of Rs.1,000/-; that there is no statutory remedy available to the Insurance Company as against an award for this meager sum of Rs.1,000/- and more over, the legal position as to the liability or otherwise of the Insurance Company in respect of an amount of a privately owned vehicle, has crystalised only in terms of the judgments rendered by the Supreme Court in the cases of United India Insurance Company Limited Vs. Tilak Singh and others reported in 2006 ACJ 1441 and Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Voluntary statement. Sudhakaran K.V. and others reported in 2008 ACJ 2045 therefore, the submission cannot be of any significance for the benefit of the sixth respondent – applicant. Sri A.V. Gangadharappa, learned counsel would again respond by submitting that the judgments rendered by the Supreme Court in both these cases were in accidents involving two-wheeler vehicles and in the present case it is a four-wheeler vehicle. However we find that, perhaps it is necessary for us to examine this aspect while disposing the main appeal and not at this stage when we are dealing with the applications filed by the fifth respondent. The applications are frivolous and untenable and deserve to be dismissed with cost of Rs.2,500/- on each of the application. However we find that, perhaps it is necessary for us to examine this aspect while disposing the main appeal and not at this stage when we are dealing with the applications filed by the fifth respondent. The applications are frivolous and untenable and deserve to be dismissed with cost of Rs.2,500/- on each of the application. The amount to be deposited by the fifth respondent before this Court within two weeks from today and can be paid in favour of the claimants whom the cause list shows to have been served, but not represented. We find the present appeal not only a travesty of justice and fair play, but an appeal which can virtually defeat the object of Chapter 11 of the Motor Vehicles Act dealing insurance of the motor vehicles against third party risks including Sections 145, 146, 147 up to 164. We find that when the death of the bread winner of the family in a motor cycle accident where the dependents are the wife aged about 23 years, minor daughter aged about 2 years and aged mother of 50 years of the deceased had brought on the claim petition for providing the substitute for the loss of their life support in the year 2000 i.e., the year of the accident, the Tribunal has passed an award during March, 2007 and we are now in March, 2010 and the claimants have not realised even a single pie but on the other hand perhaps would have incurred considerable expenses regarding legal expenses. Though we notice that we have granted interim order in favour of the appellant staying the implementation of the order and award of the court below as on 14.7.2008, we find there is absolutely no justification to continue this interim order any further in the peculiar facts as noticed above and therefore we vacate the interim order and put the appellant on term, that the appellant should deposit the entire award amount without interest before this Court within four weeks to show their bonafides to prosecute this appeal. We would permit the claimants before the Tribunal to draw 50% of this amount as and when they enter appearance in this appeal. We would permit the claimants before the Tribunal to draw 50% of this amount as and when they enter appearance in this appeal. The Registry to intimate the claimants-respondents that on their entering appearance in this appeal and participating in the present proceedings they may withdraw the 50% of the compensation amount deposited before this Court and the Registry, also to indicate that cost of Rs.5,000/- will be paid to the respondents 1 to 3 in this appeal on their entering appearance, to meet their legal expenses. Ordered accordingly. The learned counsel for the appellant to file a memo on deposit of the amount for further orders.