Madras High Court
)Veeramadevi vs )K.Manikandan on 10 March, 2021
CMP(MD)No.6566 of 2019
and
CMA(MD)SR.No.51598 of 2019
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 10.03.2021
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE J.NISHA BANU
CMP(MD)No.6566 of 2019
and
CMA(MD)SR.No.51598 of 2019
1)Veeramadevi
2)Minor Dharani
3)Minor Sanja Sabarinath
4)Minor Kavia Malli
5)Subramani
6)Anthi Malli ... Petitioners
vs.
1)K.Manikandan
2)The Branch Manager,
ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd.,
No.7, A.A. Road, Gnanaolivupuram,
Madurai-10. ... Respondents
CMP(MD)No.6566 of 2019 filed under Section 173(1) of the
Motor Vehicles Act, to condone the delay of 2118 days in filing the main
Civil Miscellaneous Appeal before this Court against the judgment in
M.C.O.P.No.1121 of 2009 dated 10.06.2013 on the file of V Additional
District Judge, Madurai.
CMA(MD)SR.No.51598 of 2019 filed under Section 173 of the
1/6
http://www.judis.nic.in
CMP(MD)No.6566 of 2019
and
CMA(MD)SR.No.51598 of 2019
Motor Vehicles Act, against the judgment and decree of the learned
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Madurai (V Additional District Judge,
Madurai) in M.C.O.P.No.1121 of 2009 dated 10.06.2013.
For Petitioners : Ms.P.Yasmin Begum
For R2 : Mr.P.Pethu Rajesh
ORDER
This petition has been filed to condone the delay of 2118 days in
filing the above appeal.
2.In an accident which occurred on 21.09.2008, husband of the 1st
petitioner, father of the petitioners 2 to 4 and son of the petitioners 5 and
6 died. The legal representatives filed a claim petition claiming
compensation for the death of the deceased and the Tribunal has awarded
compensation of Rs.6,50,000/- with 7.5% interest per annum from the
date of petition till the date of realisation. Aggrieved by the liability
fixed on the owner of the vehicle to pay the compensation, the claimants
have filed the above appeal with the delay of 2118 days. The reason
stated for the above delay is that the 1st petitioner/wife of the deceased
was taking treatment for her impairing health condition in a private
http://www.judis.nic.in
CMP(MD)No.6566 of 2019
and
CMA(MD)SR.No.51598 of 2019
clinic at Dindigul and therefore, she could not contact the advocate and
file the above appeal in time.
3.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the 2nd
respondent.
4.Perusal of record shows that though the counsel for the
claimants contended before the Tribunal that the deceased was travelling
in the offending Lorry as a Cleaner, the Tribunal found from the
evidence of PW1-wife of the deceased, wherein, she never stated that her
husband was working as Cleaner of the Lorry and she had stated that the
deceased was able to give work for more than 10 people and he was a
person working in the capacity of Supervisor and even in Ex.P1-FIR
lodged by one of the injured passengers, it is not stated that the deceased
was a Cleaner, and therefore, the Tribunal held that the deceased
travelled in the Lorry as unauthorised person and not as Cleaner,
Loadman or Coolie, as such, he is not covered under the insurance policy
and accordingly directed the owner of the Lorry to pay compensation to
http://www.judis.nic.in
CMP(MD)No.6566 of 2019
and
CMA(MD)SR.No.51598 of 2019
the claimants, where I do not find any infirmity.
5.No sufficient cause has been shown for the inordinate and huge
delay of 2118 in filing the present appeal. The claimants have merely
stated that the 1st petitioner/wife of the deceased was taking treatment for
her impairing health condition in a private clinic at Dindigul and
therefore, she could not contact the advocate and file the above appeal in
time. The reason has been stated in a very routine manner and no details
as to the period of treatment and when the 1st petitioner recovered from
the illness have been stated. The petitioners have to explain each and
every day delay. The reason stated by the petitioners for condonation of
delay is not an acceptable reason and applying the principles in Esha
Bhattarjee vs. Managing Committee of Raghunathpur Nafar
Academy and others [2013 (5) CTC 547 (SC)], I find no reason to
condone the delay in filing the present appeal.
6.Accordingly, CMP(MD)No.6566 of 2019 is dismissed.
Consequently, CMA(MD)SR.No.51598 of 2019 is rejected.
http://www.judis.nic.in
CMP(MD)No.6566 of 2019
and
CMA(MD)SR.No.51598 of 2019
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
bala 10.03.2021
To
The Vth Additional District Judge,
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Madurai.
http://www.judis.nic.in
CMP(MD)No.6566 of 2019
and
CMA(MD)SR.No.51598 of 2019
J.NISHA BANU, J.
bala
ORDER MADE IN
CMP(MD)No.6566 of 2019 and
CMA(MD)SR.No.51598 of 2019
DATED : 10.03.2021
http://www.judis.nic.in
