J.M. Srivastava, J.
1. The New India Assurance Company Ltd. has come in appeal against the order dated 8-6-81 passed by the learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, North Lakhimpur, whereby the petitioner's application under Rule 13 of Order IX of the Code of Civil Procedure was rejected. The respondent No. 1 in this appeal, had filed petition for compensation for the death of her husband in a motor accident on 21-12-69. In the said claim petition M/s. Howrah Insurance Company as insurer was also arrayed as opposite party. During the pendency of the claim petition with effect from 1-1-74, the Howrah Insurance Company merged with the New India Assurance Company Ltd., the present appellant. Even though M/s. Howrah Insurance Company had put in appearance in the motor accident claim case, after the merger with effect from 1-1-74, it appears that none appeared in the case and finally on 10-1-79 ex-parte award was made. The present appellant then applied for setting aside the ex- award. The learned Tribunal by the impugned order rejected the application, hence this appeal.
2. I have heard Shri A.K. Choudhury, learned Counsel for the appellant and Shri S.N. Chetia, learned Counsel for the claimants respondents.
3. The submission of Shri A.K. Choudhury, learned Counsel for the appellant, is that after M/s. Howrah Insurance Company merged with the appellant, the claimant had not taken any steps to serve the appellant with any notice and even the title of the motor accident claim case had not been corrected with the result the appellant bad no know ledge and the award was made ex-parte against the appellant. Shri Choudhury has accordingly submitted that the ex-parte award should be set aside.
4. The impugned order dated 8-6-81 reveals that the learned Tribunal found that the appellant had been served with notice on 9-12-77. It appears that the said notice even though meant for M/s. Howrah Insurance Company, was served on the present appellant which with effect from 1-1-74 bad taken over the assets and liabilities of the said merged company, i.e. M/s. Howrah Insurance Company. In view of the fact that the said notice had been served on the appellant on 9-12-77, the learned Tribunal was quite justified and correct in taking the view that there was no ground to set aside the ex-parte award.
5. In so far as the cross objection by the claimants respondent is concerned; the submission is that the learned Tribunal did not award any interest on the compensation allowed. Shri A.K. Choudhury, counsel for the appellant has submitted that as the appeal is not directed against the award, the cross-objection is not maintainable. While it is true that this appeal is not directed against the award as such but the appeal is vitally concerned with the award, for the reason that in case the appeal was to be allowed, the award would have been set aside. It is, therefore, not reason able to accept the contention that just because this appeal is directed against the order of rejection of the application under Rule 13 of Order IX of the CPC, the cross objection by the claimant respondents is not maintainable. The cross objection filed by the respondents is maintainable and in the interest of justice the same is allowed. The claimant respondents shall be entitled to interest at the rate of 9% per annum on the compensation amount, from the date of the award until realisation. Shri Choudbury points out that the appellant has deposited half the awarded amount earlier. The liability for interest shall be proportionately determined accordingly.
6. With the above observations and direction the appeal is dismissed and cross objection is allowed.