Madras High Court
S.Saravanakumar vs T.Murugan on 16 June, 2022
C.M.A.(MD)Nos.193 and 194 of 2012
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Dated : 16.06.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE R. THARANI
C.M.A.(MD)No.193 and 194 of 2012
C.M.A.(MD)No.193 of 2012
S.Saravanakumar .. Appellant/Petitioner
Vs.
1.T.Murugan
2.New India Insurance Company Ltd.,
Balamore Road, Nagercoil,
Represented through
Divisional Manager
3.R.Pitchaiyah
4.The New India Assurance Co., Ltd.,
Kella South Street,
Nagapattinam. .. Respondents / Respondents
Prayer: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988, to allow the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal and to enhance the
award amount by modifying the award and decree passed in M.C.O.P.No.471 of
1995, dated 11.10.2006 by the IV Additional Sub Judge, Madurai.
1/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.(MD)Nos.193 and 194 of 2012
C.M.A.(MD)No.194 of 2012
Nambirajan .. Appellant/Petitioner
Vs.
1.T.Murugan
2.New India Insurance Company Ltd.,
Balamore Road, Nagercoil,
3.R.Pitchaiyah
4.The New India Assurance Co., Ltd.,
Kella South Street,
Nagapattinam. .. Respondents / Respondents
Prayer: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988, to allow the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal and to enhance the
award amount by modifying the award and decree passed in M.C.O.P.No.472 of
1995, dated 11.10.2006 by the IV Additional Sub Judge, Madurai.
(In both Appeals)
For Appellant : No appearance
For Respondent No. 1 : No appearance
For Respondent No.2 : Mr.D.Sivaraman
Respondent No.3 : Dismissed vide order dated 27.03.2013
For Respondent No.4 : No appearance
2/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.(MD)Nos.193 and 194 of 2012
COMMON JUDGMENT
C.M.A.(MD)No. 193 of 2012 is filed against the order, dated 11.10.2006,
passed in M.C.O.P.No.471 of 1995, by the IV Additional Sub Judge, Madurai. The
appellant is the petitioner and the respondents herein are the respondents in the
original claim petition.
2. C.M.A.(MD)No. 193 of 2012 is filed against the order, dated
11.10.2006, passed in M.C.O.P.No.472 of 1995, by the IV Additional Sub Judge,
Madurai. The appellant is the petitioner and the respondents herein are the
respondents in the original claim petition.
3. Brief substance of the petitions in M.C.O.P.Nos.471 and 472 of 1995 is
as follows:-
On 26.03.1993, the petitioner and others travelled in a Ambasador Car,
bearing Registration No.TNR-5110 that belonged to the third respondent along the
Madurai - Virudhunagar National Highways, at about 12.30 noon, at that time,
another vehicle viz., Van, bearing Registration No.TN-74-A-2088 belonged to the
first respondent came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the car. The
accident has happened due to the rash and negligent driving of the drivers of the first
3/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.(MD)Nos.193 and 194 of 2012
and third respondents' vehicle. The petitioners sustained injuries and they filed this
petitions claiming compensation.
4. Brief substance of the counter filed by the first respondent, in
M.C.O.P.Nos.471 and 472 of 1995, is as follows:-
It was the car driver, who was rash and negligent and the car dashed
against the Van. Since the accident took place only due to the negligence of the car
driver, the first respondent is not liable to pay compensation.
5. Brief substance of the counter filed by the respondents 2 and 4, in
M.C.O.P.Nos.471 and 472 of 1995, is as follows:-
The Insurance policy is denied. The respondents 1 and 3 are not the
owners of the vehicle and their vehicles were not insured with the second and fourth
respondents - the Insurance Company. The age, income, profession, injuries, medical
expenses, disability are all denied. The claim is excessive.
6. A joint trial was conducted in M.C.O.P.No.471 of 1995
and M.C.O.P.No. 472 of 1995 and a common judgment was passed. On the
side of the claimants, 6 witnesses were examined and 24 documents
were marked. On the side of the respondents, no witness was examined
and no document was marked. After trial, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of
Rs.55,250/- to the claimant in M.C.O.P.No.471 of 1995 and awarded Rs.48,900/- to
4/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.(MD)Nos.193 and 194 of 2012
the claimant in M.C.O.P.No.472 of 1995 and has held that on behalf of the
respondents 1 and 3, the second respondent was liable to pay compensation. Against
the award, the appellants have filed this appeals.
7. When both the appeals are taken up for hearing today, there is no
representation on the side of the appellant. The learned counsel for the second
respondent is present.
8. A perusal of the records reveals that the third respondent, who was the
owner of the car was impleaded as the third respondent in the original claim petition.
The appellant failed to pay batta for the third respondent till 10.04.2013. Hence, this
Court passed an conditional order, on 27.03.2013. The matter was taken up in the
list on 13.06.2022. At the request of the appellant, it was adjourned to 16.06.2022.
On 16.06.2022, there was no representation on the side of the appellant. Batta for the
third respondent was not yet filed. Already in the conditional order dated
27.03.2013, this Court has specifically mentioned that on failure to comply the
condition, the appeals will be dismissed. But, sofar the appellant counsel has not
taken any steps to pay batta for the third respondent. This appeals are pending from
the year 2012. There is no use in keeping the cases pending any further.
5/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.(MD)Nos.193 and 194 of 2012
9. In view of the same, both the appeals are dismissed. No costs. The
Insurance company is directed to deposit the award amount with accrued interest and
costs within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order,
if not already deposited. On such deposit being made, the Tribunal may permit the
claimant to withdraw the amount with interest and costs, less any amount, if already
withdrawn by them. No costs.
16.06.2022
Ls
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
1.The IV Additional Sub Judge,
Madurai.
2.The Section Officer,
V.R. Section,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
6/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.M.A.(MD)Nos.193 and 194 of 2012
R. THARANI, J.
Ls
Pre-delivery Judgment made in
C.M.A.(MD)Nos.193 and 194 of 2012
16.06.2022
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
