C.M.A.No.906 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 23.09.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE
C.M.A.No.906 of 2018
and C.M.P.No.7510 of 2018
Alamelu .. Appellant
Vs.
1. Muthaiyan
2. Gangaiammal
3. Natarajan
4. The Divisional Manager,
National Insurance Company Limited,
No.19, Officers Lane,
Vellore. .. Respondents
Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988 to set aside the decree and judgement dated 18.06.2014,
made in M.C.O.P.No.329 of 2013, passed by the Motor Accidents Claims
Tribunal - II, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tiruvanamalai.
For Appellant : Mr.G.Mohammed Aseef
For Respondents 1 & 2 : Ms.A.Subadra
-----
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
1/5
C.M.A.No.906 of 2018
JUDGMENT
(The case has been heard through video conference) This appeal has been filed challenging the award dated 18.06.2014, passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tiruvannamalai in M.C.O.P.No.329 of 2013.
2. The appellant has filed this appeal on the ground that she is the only legal representative of the deceased Ganapathy who died on 10.12.2009, as a result of the accident caused by the vehicle insured with the 4th respondent. But however, according to the appellant, based on the claim petition filed by the respondents 1 and 2, who are the paternal uncle and paternal aunt, impugned award has been passed excluding the appellant from claiming compensation for the death of her father Ganapathy as a result of the accident.
3. In the grounds of appeal, the appellant has also stated that during the pendency of M.C.O.P.No.329 of 2013, the 4th respondent insurance company filed I.A.No.24 of 2013 before the Tribunal seeking to implead the appellant as third respondent in the claim petition. But however, according https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 2/5 C.M.A.No.906 of 2018 to the appellant, without serving notice in the said application on the appellant, the Tribunal has set the appellant ex parte and gone ahead and passed the impugned award.
4. This Court, has perused and examined the death certificate dated 03.02.2010 of the deceased Ganapathy as well as the legal heir certificate dated 03.03.2010, which states that the only legal heir of the deceased Ganapathy is the appellant. The legal heir certificate of the deceased Ganapathy dated 03.03.2010 was also not marked as exhibit before the Tribunal. The appellant was admittedly not heard by the Tribunal before passing of the impugned Award.
5. This Court is of the considered view that the impugned award will have to be set aside and the matter remanded back to the Tribunal for fresh consideration in the light of the contention raised by the appellant in this appeal and in the light of the legal heir certificate produced by the appellant in this appeal. Accordingly the impugned award dated 18.06.2014, passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tiruvannamalai in M.C.O.P.No.329 of 2013 is hereby set aside and the matter remanded back to the very same Tribunal for fresh consideration on https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 3/5 C.M.A.No.906 of 2018 merits and in accordance with law after hearing all the necessary parties including the appellant and all the parties are permitted to adduce further evidence in support of their respective contention. The Tribunal shall dispose of the claim petition within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgemnet. With the aforesaid directions, this appeal is disposed of. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs.
23.09.2021 Index : Yes / No kk To
1. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tiruvannamalai.
2. The Section Officer, VR Section, High Court, Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 4/5 C.M.A.No.906 of 2018 ABDUL QUDDHOSE, J.
kk C.M.A.No.906 of 2018 and C.M.P.No.7510 of 2018 23.09.2021 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ 5/5