Madras High Court
L.Saikumar vs D.Prince on 9 February, 2022
C.M.A. No.3230 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 09.02.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.KALYANASUNDARAM
and
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.SIVAGNANAM
C.M.A. No.3230 of 2021
1. L.Saikumar
2. S.Brinda Malini
3. S.Threnethra ... Appellants
-vs-
1. D.Prince
2. TATA AIG General Insurance Company Ltd.,
2nd floor, Samson Towers,
403 L, Pantheon Road,
Egmore, Chennai – 600 008. ... Respondents
PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988 to set aside the order and decree in M.A.C.T. O.P.
No.4096 of 2018 dated 23.03.2020 passed by the Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal, Chief Small Causes Judge, Chennai and pass such further order.
For Appellants : Mr.L.Rajasekar
For Respondent-2 : Mr.E.Rajadurai
for M/s.M.B.Gopalan Associates
1/6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A. No.3230 of 2021
JUDGMENT
(Order of the Court was made by K.KALYANASUNDARAM, J.,)
This Appeal is directed against the Judgment and Decree passed by
the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chief Small Causes Court at Chennai
in M.C.O.P. No.4096 of 2018 dated 23.03.2020.
2. The brief facts of the case is that on 06.11.2016 at about 8 a.m., the
deceased - Sesha Sai Sathyanarayana was riding his motorcycle bearing
Registration No.TN 09 CA 7304. When has was proceeding from
Kalpakkam to Chennai, he met with an accident and his vehicle was hit by
another two wheeler bearing Registration No.TN 19 Q 4818. The said
vehicle was ridden by one Purushothaman. In the accident, both the riders of
the vehicle viz., Sesha Sai Sathyanarayana and Purushothaman died on the
spot. The pillion rider of the vehicle bearing Registration No.TN 19 Q 4818,
Manikandan, sustained injuries.
3. The legal heirs of the deceased Sesha Sai Sathyanarayana filed
M.C.O.P. No.4096 of 2018 before the Chief Small Causes Court, Chennai,
seeking compensation of Rs.90,00,000/- (Rupees Ninety Lakhs Only)
alleging that the rider of the another two wheeler, the deceased-
Purushothaman, was responsible for the accident. The legal heirs of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A. No.3230 of 2021
deceased Purushothaman filed M.C.O.P. No.3345 of 2017 and the same is
pending before the III Small Causes Court, Chennai. Injured- Manikandan
has filed M.C.O.P. No.2630 of 2018, which is pending on the file of the VI
Small Causes Court, Chennai.
4. It appears that all the three claim petitions arise out of the same
accident. However, neither transfer petition was filed before the Chief Small
Causes Court, Chennai, nor it was brought to the knowledge of the Chief
Judge, Small Causes Court, for Joint Trial of all the three petitions, when
M.C.O.P. No.4096 of 2018 was taken up for final hearing. The Tribunal
dismissed the claim petition, observing that a Criminal case was registered
against the deceased Sesha Sai Sathyanarayana and no final report was filed
in the Criminal case registered against him. In the absence of substantial
materials, negligence could not be fixed on the basis of the evidence of eye-
witness.
5. The learned Counsel appearing for the Appellants,
Mr.L.Rajasekar, would argue that the claimants were not aware of the
pendency of the other two claim petitions, which were filed by some other
counsels and in the interest of Justice, all the claim petitions have to be heard
together and disposed of and the findings given in this case cannot be
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A. No.3230 of 2021
sustained.
6. Learned counsel appearing for the second respondent,
Mr.E.Rajadurai has also clearly stated that all the three claim petitions ought
to have been disposed of by the same Tribunal, to avoid conflicting
decisions.
7. Heard, the learned Counsel appearing for the Appellants,
Mr.L.Rajasekar; learned counsel appearing for the second respondent,
Mr.E.Rajadurai and perused the materials available on record.
8.We find force in the submission made by the learned counsel
appearing for the appellant. Admittedly, all the three claim petitions, above
referred came to be filed by the legal heirs of the deceased and injured
claimant, who were the victims of the Motor Vehicle Accident occurred on
06.11.2016, in which two Motor cycles were involved. So, we are of the
considered opinion that the reason given by the Tribunal could not be
countenanced and all the three claim petitions require joint trial.
9. In such view of the matter, the Judgment and Decree passed by the
Tribunal in the M.C.O.P. No.4096 of 2018 dated 23.02.2020 is set aside
and the matter is remanded back to the Chief Small Causes Court, Chennai
for fresh consideration.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A. No.3230 of 2021
10. The learned Chief Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai shall
withdraw the other two petitions viz., M.C.O.P. No.3345 of 2017 and
M.C.O.P. No.2360 of 2018 from the III Small Causes Court, Chennai and
VI Small Causes Court, Chennai respectively and dispose of all the three
petitions duly on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of six
months from the date of receipt of copy of this Judgment.
11. With the above direction, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal stands
allowed. No costs.
(M.K.K.S.J.,) (V.S.G.J.,)
09.02.2022
ab/jer
Index:Yes/No
Internet:Yes/No
Speaking order/Non-speaking order
To
1.The Chief Small Causes Judge,
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
Chennai.
2. The Section Officer,
V.R. Section
High Court of Madras, Chennai - 104.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A. No.3230 of 2021
K.KALYANASUNDARAM, J.
and
V.SIVAGNANAM, J.
ab/jer
C.M.A. No.3230 of
09.02.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
