S.Abdul Samadu vs Muruganantham
2022 Latest Caselaw 677 Mad

                                                                            C.R.P.(MD)No.2308 of 2017


                          BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

                                               DATED : 11.01.2022

                                                       CORAM

                                   THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE P.T.ASHA

                                          C.R.P.(MD)No.2308 of 2017
                                        and C.M.P.(MD)No.11180 of 2017

               S.Abdul Samadu                                          ... Petitioner
                                                        Vs.
               Muruganantham                                           ... Respondent


               PRAYER:-           Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the
               Constitution of India, to call for the records pertaining to I.A.No.1850 of
               2017 in M.C.O.P.No.371 of 2013 dated 12.10.2017 on the file of the Motor
               Accidents Claim Tribunal/Special Subordinate Court, Thanjavur and set
               aside the same in so far as imposition of deposit of 50% of the award
               amount in concerned.


                                      For Petitioner    : Mr.D.Sadiqraja

                                      For Respondent : Mr.N.Tamilmani



                                                       ORDER

The respondent before the Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal/Special

Subordinate Court, Thanjavur is the revision petitioner before this Court

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.(MD)No.2308 of 2017

challenging the conditional order passed by the Tribunal in condoning the

delay in filing an application to set aside the ex-parte award.

2.It appears that the respondent/claimant had filed MCOP.No.371 of

2013 seeking compensation for road traffic accident caused due to the

negligence of the revision petitioner herein by reason of which, the

respondent/claimant had sustained injuries. He had claimed Rs.5 Lakhs

as compensation. Since the petitioner herein had not appeared despite

service of summons, an ex-parte award was passed on 06.02.2016.

Thereafter, the respondent/claimant had filed execution proceedings in

E.P.No.47 of 2017. The petitioner, who was served, entered appearance

through counsel on 01.09.2017 and thereafter, filed a petition to set aside

the ex-parte award along with a petition to condone the delay of 538

days. This condone delay petition was numbered as I.A.No.1850 of 2017

and the same had been allowed by order dated 12.10.2017 by the

Tribunal. However, while allowing this petition the learned Judge had

passed a conditional order directing the petitioner herein to deposit 50%

of the award amount on or before 31.10.2017 failing which the petition

would stand dismissed automatically. Challenging this portion of the

order, the petitioner has approached this Court.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.(MD)No.2308 of 2017

3.The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would rely upon

the judgment reported in 2015 (4) CTC 346 in a case R.Mathiazhagan

and another Vs. P.J.Ethiraj and others wherein, the Court had set

aside the order imposing cost by stating that it was onerous.

4.In the instant case, the revision petitioner had sought to have the

delay condoned on the ground that he has suffering from jaundice since

25.01.2016. The application for setting aside the ex-parte order has been

filed with a delay of 538 days. It is incomprehensible as to how a person

would suffer jaundice for over 538 days without any serious after affects

of a prolonged spell of jaundice. However, the Tribunal in the interests of

justice had condoned the delay and directed the petitioner only to deposit

50% of the award amount. The award amount is Rs.2,05,365/-. The

learned Judge has consciously not directed payment to the claimant but,

has only directed to deposit the amount more in the form of security for

the respondent/claimant, who has suffered on account of the rash and

negligent driving of the petitioner(which has to be rebutted and need to

be proved by the petitioner herein).

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.(MD)No.2308 of 2017

5.Facts of the case reported in 2015 (4) CTC 346 relied upon by

the learned counsel for the petitioner would not apply to the facts of this

case, since the suit thereon was a suit for recovery of money on a

commercial contract of over a sum of Rs.4.70 Crores and by the

conditional order, the Court had directed the defendant to deposit the

admitted liability of over a sum of Rs.3 Crores. This case may not be

squarely applicable to the facts of the case on hand and is capable of

being distinguished. Therefore, I do not find any reason to interfere with

the order passed by the Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal/Special

Subordinate Court, Thanjavur. Accordingly, this civil revision petition is

dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is

closed.

11.01.2022

Index:Yes/No Internet:Yes/No gns Note: In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the responsibility of the advocate/litigant concerned.

To

The Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal/Special Subordinate Court, Thanjavur

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.R.P.(MD)No.2308 of 2017

P.T.ASHA,J.

gns

C.R.P.(MD)No.2308 of 2017

11.01.2022

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