Sahithya vs Murugaboopathi
2021 Latest Caselaw 9755 Mad

                                                          C.R.P. (PD) No. 803 of 2021

           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                              DATED : 16.04.2021

                                   CORAM

            THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V. KARTHIKEYAN

                         C.R.P. (PD) No. 803 of 2021

Sahithya                                                             ... Petitioner

                                     -vs-

1. Murugaboopathi

2. The Branch Manager,
   New India Assurance Company Ltd.,
   69-C, North Ratha Street,
   Thiruchegode.                                                 ... Respondents

Prayer:- Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of
India, 1950, praying to direct the Learned Subordinate Judge, Rasipuram to
entertain unnumbered I.A. No.      of 2018 in M.C.O.P. No. 31 of 2010 and
number the same and allow the C.R.P.

             For Petitioner     : Mr. R.Nalliyappan

             For Respondents : No appearance

                                  ORDER

The Civil Revision Petition has been filed aggrieved by the fact that the

application filed by the Petitioner herein had been returned by the Sub Court,

Rasipuram/Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal.

C.R.P. (PD) No. 803 of 2021

2. The M.C.O.P. No. 31 of 2010 had been originally filed seeking

compensation in respect of road accident. The Trial Court in the course of its

judgment had granted award of Rs.16,32,000/- (Rupees Sixteen Lakh Thirty

Two Thousand only). A compromise had been arrived at between the Petitioner

in the M.C.O.P. and the Second Respondent, viz., Officers of the New India

Assurance Company Limited at Thiruchengode. The Second Respondent

deposited the entire amount which had been arrived in the compromise between

the Petitioner and the Second Respondent along with interest. That deposit was

also accepted by the Court of the first instance where the trial took place and

where the judgment and decree had been passed.

3. At that particular point of time, the Petitioner herein and the Third and

Fourth Claimants where minors and therefore, their apportioned amount or

rather the amounts to which they were held to be entitled by apportioning the

total amount had been deposited into a bank account. The Petitioner has now

attained the age of majority. Therefore, she claims entitlement for withdrawal

of the amount lying in the bank account. She had filed an application for that

reason before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, viz., Sub Court,

Rasipuram. Unfortunately, the said Petition seems to have circulated around in

C.R.P. (PD) No. 803 of 2021

the office itself and no effective order has been passed by the Learned Judge. A

note had been put up stating that the amount which was actually granted as

award was different from the amount mentioned in the Petition.

4. I am really unable to understand the rationale behind such a return.

The Petitioner only seeks return of amount deposited in the bank account which

has been lying in the fixed deposit from the time when Petitioner was minor

and for which she is entitled to after attaining the age of majority. The Court

shall call for the requisite details from the bank authorities and find out the

amount due and payable to the Petitioner. There is no issue regarding the

identity of the Petitioner and that the Petitioner is the person in respect of

whom the amount had been deposited. There is also no rival claimant to the

claim of the Petitioner. If there is a dispute with respect to the amount, it is only

because an award was originally granted and thereafter, a compromise had been

entered into and the Insurance Company had deposited the entire compromise

amount with interest. The Court can very well call upon the Registry of the

Court to do the clerical work to determine the amount due and payable to the

Petitioner and pay the amount to the petitioner.

C.R.P. (PD) No. 803 of 2021

5. I find that no reason to justify the return of the application filed by the

Petitioner. Learned Sub Judge, Rasipuram is requested to take on file the said

Petition, call for the details and if required, examine the present Petitioner,

examine the records and determine the amount payable and pay the amount to

the Petitioner. It has to be kept in mind that the entire proceedings in a Motor

Accidents Claims Tribunal are for the welfare of the litigant who had suffered

economic loss quite apart from the loss of dear and near ones in an accident.

Taking a stringent and strict view may not be appreciated particularly when it is

an issue of payment of an amount which is already lying in the bank account for

which the Petitioner is entitled to on attaining the age of majority. The Petition

may be taken on file and the Petitioner may be advised to satisfy the

requirements therein and necessary orders may be passed.

6. The Civil Revision Petition is allowed with a direction to act

accordingly. No order as to costs.

16.04.2021 vjt

Index: Yes/No Internet: Yes/No Speaking Order/Non-speaking Order

C.R.P. (PD) No. 803 of 2021

To

1. The Sub Court, Rasipuram.

2. The Branch Manager, New India Assurance Company Ltd., 69-C, North Ratha Street, Thiruchegode.

C.R.P. (PD) No. 803 of 2021

C.V. KARTHIKEYAN, J.

vjt

C.R.P. (PD) No. 803 of 2021

16.04.2021