JUDGMENT
C.Y. Somayajulu, J.
1. Appellant filed the claim petition seeking compensation of Rs. 30,000/-from the respondents, who are the owner and insurer of the lorry bearing No. ABW 2293 alleging that the driver of that lorry, due to his rash and negligent driving, caused damage to his pan shop. First respondent chose to remain ex parte before the Tribunal. Appeal against him (first respondent) stood dismissed for default for non-payment of process as per the order dated 17-2-2000. Second respondent filed counter, inter alia, contending that its liability is limited to an extent of Rs. 6,000/-. In support of his case, appellant examined himself as P.W.1 and another witness as P.W.2 and marked Exs.A-1 to A-3. No evidence either oral or documentary was adduced on behalf of second respondent. The Tribunal having held that the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the lorry of the first respondent, passed an award for Rs. 20,000/-in favour of the appellant against both the respondents with interest at 12% p.a. from the date of award till date of deposit. Aggrieved by the Tribunal not awarding interest on the compensation awarded to him, the claimant preferred this appeal.
2. The contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant is that in view of Section 171 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘the Act’), the Tribunal was in error in awarding interest on the compensation awarded only from the date of award and not from the date of filing of the petition.
3. The contention of the learned Counsel for second respondent is that the Tribunal was in error in fastening the liability for the entire amount of Rs. 20,000/-on the second respondent without keeping in view Section 147(2)(b) of the Act. In reply, the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant is that since second respondent did not file any cross appeal or cross objections questioning the award of the Tribunal, award cannot be modified restricting the liability of second respondent to Rs. 6,000/-.
4. I am unable to agree with the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant that this Court cannot interfere with the findings of the Tribunal which are favourable to it, when second respondent did not question those adverse findings, by preferring cross objections, because Rule 33 of Order 41 of the Civil Procedure Code enables the appellate Court to correct wrong findings of the Trial Court even though the respondent did not file cross appeal or cross objections questioning the adverse findings against them.
5. The Tribunal fastened the liability for the entire compensation awarded on the second respondent merely on the ground that it did not adduce evidence to show that its liability is restricted to Rs. 6,000/-. The Tribunal, obviously, failed to keep in view Section 147(2)(b) of the Act which specifically restricts the liability of the insurer to Rs. 6,000/- in respect of damage to the property of third party. When the Act fixed the maximum liability of the insurer for third party property damage at Rs. 6,000/-, and when the appellant seeks to make the insurer liable for an amount more than Rs. 6,000/- it is he that has to establish as to how he can claim any amount above Rs. 6,000/- from the insurer. In other words, the burden of proof to establish that the insurer has to pay more than Rs. 6,000/- towards damages to his property loss is on the appellant. When the burden of proof is on the appellant, and when the appellant did not furnish the policy particulars, second respondent not producing a copy of the policy is not a ground for drawing an inference against it. So, appellant can recover only Rs. 6,000/-from the second respondent for the damage to his property. On either the appellant or the first respondent establishing that second respondent undertook to cover risk above Rs. 6,000/- and up to Rs. 20,000/- the award for the balance amount of Rs. 14,000/-can be executed against the second respondent.
6. Section 171 of the Act relied on by the learned Counsel for appellant empowers the Tribunal awarding interest on the compensation awarded by it from the date of making of the claim. The word used in Section 171 of the Act is ‘may’ but not ‘shall’. So, the Tribunal in exercise of its discretion ‘may’ awarded interest on the compensation from the date of petition. Since Tribunals normally award interest from the date of filing of the petition, when the Tribunal does not exercise its discretion in awarding interest from the date of petition, it is but appropriate for the Tribunal to give reasons for its not awarding interest from the date of petition. In this case, the Tribunal did not give any reasons for not awarding interest from the date of filing of the petition till the date of the award. The proceedings sheet on the Tribunal does not disclose any laches on the part of the appellant in getting ready with the trial of the O.P. So, Tribunal should have awarded interest from the date of filing of the petition.
7. Therefore, the appeal is allowed in part and the award passed by the Tribunal is modified. An award is passed for Rs. 20,000/- in favour of the appellant, against the respondents with interest at 9% p.a., from the date of filing of the petition till the date of award and with interest at 12% p.a., on Rs. 20,000/- from the date of award till the date of deposit. The liability of second respondent is presently restricted to Rs. 6,000/- and interest thereon. On either the appellant or the first respondent establishing that second respondent undertook to cover additional risk beyond Rs. 6,000/- up to Rs. 20,000/- by the date of accident i.e., 20-12-1990 the award in its entirety can be executed against the second respondent also. Parties are directed to bear their own costs in this appeal.