Sunday, 03, May, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

Devi Perachi vs Shanmugavel
2021 Latest Caselaw 21143 Mad

Citation : 2021 Latest Caselaw 21143 Mad
Judgement Date : 22 October, 2021

Madras High Court
Devi Perachi vs Shanmugavel on 22 October, 2021
                                                                              C.M.A(MD)No.1012 of 2013

                          BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

                                                     DATED : 22.10.2021

                                                            CORAM:

                                    THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE R.THARANI

                                                  C.M.A(MD) No.1012 of 2013
                                                            and
                                                  C.M.P.(MD)No.6683 of 2021
                Devi Perachi                                                       ... Appellant
                                                       Vs.
                1.Shanmugavel
                2.The Branch Manager,
                   Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd.,
                   No.46, Whites Road, Chennai.
                3.The Managing Director,
                   Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Ltd.,
                   Bye Pass Road, Madurai.                                        ...Respondents


                Prayer: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor
                Vehicles Act,1988, against the judgment and decree made in M.C.O.P.No.165
                of 2010, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal – Principal Sub
                Court, Tirunelveli, dated 09.07.2012.
                                  For Appellant       : Mr.T.Selvakumaran
                                   R1                 : Ex-parte
                                  For R2              : Mr.S.Srinivasa Raghavan
                                  For R3              : Mr.P.Prabhakaran
                                                      ***

                1/8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
                                                                              C.M.A(MD)No.1012 of 2013




                                                      JUDGMENT

This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed against the award, dated

09.07.2012, made in M.C.O.P.No.165 of 2010, on the file of the Motor

Accident Claims Tribunal – Principal Sub Court, Tirunelveli.

2.The appellant herein is the claimant and the respondents herein are

the respondents in the original claim petition. A common order was passed in

M.C.O.P.Nos.165 of 2010, 166 of 2010 and 168 of 2010, since all the claims

arise out of the same accident.

3.Brief substance of the petition, in M.C.O.P.No.165 of 2010 is

as follows:

On 03.09.2009, at about 02.00 O' clock, when the petitioner and

others were travelling in a bus bearing Registration No.TN-58-N-0705 along

the Gangaikondan – Tirunelveli Road, at that time, the first respondent's lorry

bearing Registration No.TN-72-R-1874, came in a rash and negligent manner

and without any indication suddenly turned the vehicle and dashed against the

Bus. The petitioner and others sustained injuries. The petitioner claimed a sum

of Rs.10,00,000/- as compensation.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A(MD)No.1012 of 2013

4. Brief substance of the counter of the first respondent, in

M.C.O.P.No.165 of 2010, is as follows:

The age, profession, and income of the petitioner and the manner of

the accident are all denied. Only the bus driver was responsible for the

accident. The lorry was insured with the second respondent and the first

respondent is not liable to pay any compensation.

5. Brief substance of the counter of the second respondent, in

M.C.O.P.No.165 of 2010, is as follows:

The lorry was not permitted to be driven on the occurrence area.

Policy conditions are violated. The permit for the lorry was not produced for

verification before the M.V.I inspection. The accident was not intimated to the

second respondent by the first respondent. The first respondent lorry driver

drove the vehicle in a cautious manner. It was the bus driver, who was

negligent and dashed against the back side of the lorry.

6.Brief substance of the counter of the third respondent, in

M.C.O.P.No.165 of 2010, is as follows:

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A(MD)No.1012 of 2013

The petitioner has to prove the injuries, mode of treatment through

necessary documents. The third respondent driver is not responsible for the

accident. The negligent is only on the part of the first respondent. The third

respondent is only a formal party. The claim is excessive.

7. A common trial was conducted in all the three cases. On the side

of the petitioner, four witnesses were examined and twenty four documents

were marked. On the side of the second respondent, two witnesses were

examined and one document was marked. No document was marked on the

side of the third respondent.

8. After considering both sides, the Tribunal, has awarded a sum of

Rs.1,50,000/- as compensation. Against the same, the claimant / appellant has

approached this Court, for enhancement of compensation.

9. On the side of the appellant, it is stated that the appellant wants to

file certain documents to prove claim. It is stated that the Insurance Company

also filed an appeal against the very same award, regarding the liability.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A(MD)No.1012 of 2013

10.On the side of the respondents, it is stated that the appellant want

to mark documents regarding the profession and regarding the income and if an

opportunity was given to the appellant to mark the document, it will be a

prejudice to the respondents and the respondents will be deprived of cross

examining the witnesses and to disprove the said documents.

11. It is seen that the appellant wants to mark the pay slip and an

identity card, to prove that the complainant was working as an Assistant

Executive Engineer in Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation

Limited and to mark the Pay Certificate and to prove that the appellant was

moved to Selection Grade and that to fix the loss of income, these documents

are necessary.

12. An opportunity for the claimant to prove his case is to be given in

the interest of justice. At the same time, an opportunity for the respondents to

disprove the documents has to be given.

13. Hence, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed and the award,

dated 09.07.2012, made in M.C.O.P.No.165 of 2010, on the file of the Motor

Accident Claims Tribunal – Principal Sub Court, Tirunelveli, is hereby set aside

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A(MD)No.1012 of 2013

and the matter is remanded back to the Tribunal for fresh consideration. The

Tribunal is directed to give equal opportunity for both sides to examine

additional witnesses or to re-examine the already examined witnesses and to

mark documents and to cross examine the witnesses. The Tribunal is directed

to dispose of the claim petition within a period of three months from the date of

receipt of a copy of this judgment. No costs. Consequently, connected

Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

22.10.2021 Index : Yes/ No Internet : Yes/No Ls

To

1. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal – Principal Sub Court, Tirunelveli.

2.The Section Officer, VR Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A(MD)No.1012 of 2013

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.M.A(MD)No.1012 of 2013

R.THARANI.,J.

Ls

Judgment made in C.M.A(MD) No.1012 of 2013

22.10.2021

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : Smt. Nirmala Devi Bam Memorial International Moot Court Competition

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter