Madras High Court
Alamelu vs Muthaiyan on 23 September, 2021
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/
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/
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/
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/
