Facts: The Oriental Insurance Company filed an appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, challenging an award where the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal attributed 60% contributory negligence to the claimants (Respondents No. 1 and 2) and 40% liability to the insurer. The Respondents (claimants) did not file a separate appeal but instead filed a Cross Objection under Order 41 Rule 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), seeking to challenge the findings of the Tribunal within the insurer's appeal.
Procedural Posture: The matter came before the High Court of Bombay at Goa to determine the maintainability of the Cross Objection and the associated Miscellaneous Civil Application filed by the original claimants in the pending First Appeal No. 54 of 2024.
Issue: Whether a cross objection under Order 41 Rule 22 of the CPC is maintainable in an appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, particularly in light of the Goa Motor Vehicles Rules, 1991.
Holding: No, the Cross Objection is not maintainable. The court held that the right to appeal or file cross objections is a substantive right created by statute, and since neither the Motor Vehicles Act nor the Goa Motor Vehicles Rules, 1991, extend Order 41 Rule 22 of the CPC to such proceedings, the cross objection cannot be entertained.
Reasoning: The Court reasoned that the right of appeal is a "creature of a statute" and must be exercised only in the manner prescribed therein. While Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act provides for appeals, it does not inherently include the CPC's provisions on cross objections. Under Section 176, State Governments are empowered to frame rules regarding the "form and manner" of appeals. The Court examined Rule 303 of the Goa Motor Vehicles Rules, 1991, which specifically makes only Order XII and Order XXI of the CPC applicable to appeals, notably omitting Order 41 (which contains the provision for cross objections). Drawing parallels from High Court decisions in Bihar and Himachal Pradesh, the Court concluded that in the absence of a specific rule-based extension of Order 41 Rule 22 by the Goa State Government, a respondent cannot file a cross objection and must instead file an independent appeal under Section 173 to challenge an award.