Madras High Court
C.Viji ..Revision vs Padmasini on 22 September, 2021
CRP (NPD).No.4367 of 2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 22.09.2021
CORAM
The Hon'ble Mr.Justice Krishnan Ramasamy
C.R.P (NPD)No.4367 of 2013
and
M.P.No.1 of 2013
C.Viji ..Revision Petitioner
vs.
1.Padmasini
2.P.Mahadevan
3.P.Subramani
4.P.Sathishkumar
5.P.Sureshkumar ..Respondents
PRAYER:
Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of
India praying to direct the learned Motor Accident Claim Tribunal cum Sub-
Court, Thirupattur, Vellore District to take the I.A.SR.No.9749 of 2010 in
I.A.SR.No.730 of 2010 in M.C.O.P. No.116 of 2006 on its file and to
dispose of the same on merits..
1/9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CRP (NPD).No.4367 of 2013
For Revision Petitioner : M/s.S.Sathish Rajan
For Respondents 1 to 4 : Mr.PA.Sudesh Kumar
For Respondent 5 : No appearance
ORDER
This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the rejection of the
application filed by the revision petitioner in I.A.SR.No.9749 of 2010 in
I.A.SR.No.730 of 2010 in M.C.O.P. No.116 of 2006 on the file of the Sub
Court, (Motor Accident Claim Tribunal), Thirupattur, Vellore District,
2. The revision petitioner herein is the first respondent in the
aforesaid Claim Petition and the respondents 1 to 5 herein are the claimants
thereunder.
2.1 The respondents/claimants initiated claim proceedings
against the first respondent/revision petitioner and second
respondent/Insurance Company, claiming a sum of Rs.15,00,000/-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CRP (NPD).No.4367 of 2013
2.2. The Court below, vide a judgment and decree, dated
18.04.2009, fastened entire liability on the first respondent/revision
petitioner and directed him to pay a compensation of Rs.3,54,000/-
with interest at 6% p.a. and exonerated the Insurance Company from
liability.
2.3. Aggrieved against the said ex parte decree passed against
the revision petitioner/first respondent, whereby, entire liability was
fastened on him, he filed an Interlocutory Application to set aside the
said ex parte decree along with a condone delay application. The Court
below rejected the said Application without even numbering the same.
Hence, this Civil Revision Petition.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner submits
no notice was served on the revision petitioner and without even hearing
him, the Court below passed an award, dated 18.04.2009, thereby, directing
him to pay the entire compensation, and that, the revision petitioner came to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CRP (NPD).No.4367 of 2013
know about the fact that the award was passed only when the claimants
initiated the Execution Proceedings against him. In these circumstances, the
revision petitioner filed an application to set aside the ex-parte award
passed by the Claims Tribunal and to re-open and re-hear the case and as
abundant caution, he also filed an Application to condone the delay in filing
the application to set aside the said ex parte decree. However, the same was
returned by the Court below without even numbering the same.
3.1 Further, learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted
that it is the grievance of the revision petitioner that the rider of the two
wheeler was not even examined so as to find out the fact whether he
had license or not and even assuming that the rider of the two wheeler
did not possess license, the Court below ought to have applied pay and
recovery theory, and without doing so, Court below, straightaway
directed the revision petitioner to pay the entire compensation.
Furthermore, the learned counsel submitted that, in the event, the rider
of the two wheeler possess license, the Insurance Company is liable to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CRP (NPD).No.4367 of 2013
pay the compensation.
3.2 Therefore, the learned counsel submitted that the rights of the
revision petitioner would be prejudiced, if the Claim Petition is not re-
opened and he is re-heard. Hence, the learned counsel prayed for allowing
the Civil Revision Petition.
4. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 4 submits
that since the Court below found that the accident occurred due to rash and
negligent act of the rider of the two-wheeler, who did not possess valid
license, entire liability was fastened on the first respondent/revision
petitioner/owner of the vehicle and directed him to pay the compensation,
and that, since the first respondent/revision petitioner did not diligently
contested the Claim Petition, he was set ex parte. Therefore, the learned
counsel submitted that no useful purpose would be achieved in re-opening
and re-hearing the claim proceedings onceagain.
5. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the revision
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CRP (NPD).No.4367 of 2013
petitioner and the learned counsel for respondents 1 to 4. Though
notice was served on the fifth respondent and his name is printed in the
cause list, none appeared on his behalf.
6. It is settled legal position of law that, anything and everything
has to be heard by providing opportunities to both the parties and the
Court below should see through it that there was no violation of
principles of natural justice. It is not fair on the part of the Court below
to reject the application by citing the reason that the second
respondent/Insurance Company was heard and those reasons cannot be
accepted by this Court, and the first respondent/revision petitioner
needs to be heard and thereafter, liability has to be fastened against
him, if at all, there is any liability that can be fastened as per law.
6.1 Therefore, the rejection of the application at the Sr stage
itself by the Court is not proper. The Court below ought to have
numbered the application and provided opportunities to both sides and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CRP (NPD).No.4367 of 2013
thereafter, decided the matter on merits. Such exercise having not been
done by the Court below, this Court finds that there was serious lapse
on the part of the Court below in the decision making process.
6.2 Hence, this Court is inclined to direct the Court below to
number the un-numbered application filed by the revision petitioner
and decide the matter on merits after giving opportunity to the parties
in the proceedings.
7. In the result, this Civil Revision Petition is disposed of, by
directing the Court below to number the application, and dispose of the
same within a period of two weeks. Since the matter is kept pending
for a very long time, nearly for a decade, this Court directs the Court
below to number the application within 2 weeks from the date of
receipt of copy of this order, and thereafter, pass orders in the
application within a period of 6 months from the date of first hearing of
the said application. No costs. Consequently, the connected
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CRP (NPD).No.4367 of 2013
miscellaneous petition is closed.
22.09.2021
Index: Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking Order
sd
Note :
Registry is directed to return all the originals,
if any, filed by the Revision Petitioner.
To
The Sub Judge,
Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Thirupattur,
Vellore District
Krishnan Ramasamy, J.,
sd
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
CRP (NPD).No.4367 of 2013
C.R.P (NPD)No.4367 of 2013
and
M.P.No.1 of 2013
22.09.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
