Madras High Court
N.Narayanan vs Tmt.T.Hemalatha on 14 August, 2023
CRP No.3739 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 14.08.2023
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN
C.R.P.No.3739 of 2017
and CMP No.17380 of 2017
N.Narayanan .... Petitioner
Vs
Tmt.T.Hemalatha ... Respondent
PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of
India against the order dated 21.04.2017 passed in REA No.9 of 2017 in REP
No.61 of 2016 in O.S.No.151 of 2015 by the learned Principal Subordinate
Judge, Krishnagiri.
For Petitioner : Ms.S.Meenakshi
For Respondent : No appearance
ORDER
This Civil Revision Petition arises against an order passed by the learned
Principal Subordinate Judge, Krishnagiri in REA No.9 of 2017 in REP No.61 of
2016 in O.S.No.151 of 2015.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRP No.3739 of 2017
2. The petitioner before me is the judgment creditor. He had presented a
suit in O.S.No.151 of 2015 for recovery of Rs.2,20,000/- (Rupees Two lakhs
twenty thousand only) together with interest. The said suit was decreed on
08.10.2015. In the meantime, MCOP No.96 of 2003 was filed by the judgment
debtor/respondent in this civil revision petition, claiming compensation of
Rs.25,00,000/- towards the death of her husband Thirumoorthy on 29.06.2002.
It ended in an award dated 29.03.2006.
3. As per the Award in MCOP No.96 of 2003, Rs.12,01,000/- was
awarded to the respondent and Rs.1,00,000/- each was awarded to the children
and parents. The petitioner/judgment creditor presented an Execution Petition
for attachment of an amount of Rs.2,56,353/- together with subsequent interest
of Rs.10,413/-, in all Rs.2,66,766/-. The said application was numbered as REA
No.9 of 2017. Since the respondent could not be served, paper publication was
effected and thereafter, by proceedings dated 27.03.2016, a cheque for the said
amount was directed to be issued and accordingly, the cheque was also issued.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRP No.3739 of 2017
4. However, the learned Subordinate Judge, vide the impunged order,
dismissed the petition on the basis of the judgment rendered by the Division
Bench of this Court in the case of K.Ayyasammy vs Mohanasundari and
others 2003 (3) LW 712. According to the said judgment, the award of
compensation granted by the Court enures in favour of the person who is the
petitioner before the Court in the MCOP proceedings and does not vest with the
estate of the deceased.
5. Ms.S.Meenakshi, learned counsel for the petitioner, would contend that
a perusal of the judgment would go to show that in the facts of that case,
compensation has been awarded for the death of an advocate and for the
liabilities incurred by him, an execution petition was filed, seeking to attach the
compensation that has been awarded to his family members. This Court had
held that there are two forms of damages – one is the pecuniary loss to the
estate of the deceased from the accident and another is the pecuinary loss
sustained by the members of the family due to his death. The Division Bench of
this Court has categorically held that the amount awarded for the death of the
deceased does not enure to the estate, but enures personally in favour of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRP No.3739 of 2017
claimants.
6. Ms.S.Meenakshi points out that in the case on hand, it was not
Mr.Thirumoorthy, the husband of Hemalatha, who incurred the debt, but it was
Hemalatha herself who had received a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- from
Narayanan/judgment creditor and also issued a cheque in discharge thereof. In
other words, she would point out that there is a difference between the husband
being judgement debtor and the wife being the judgment debtor in whose favour
compensation has enured.
7. I agree with Ms.S.Meenakshi. The compensation that has been paid
might be on account of death of Thirumoorthy, but, it is a compensation granted
to Hemalatha in her personal capacity. The decree passed in O.S.No.151 of
2015 is also against Hemalatha not as a legal heir of Thirumoorthy, but as a
judgment debtor. Consequently, Hemalatha is answerable to the decree passed
in O.S.No.151 of 2015 dated 08.10.2015.
8. Having come to the conclusion, I necessarily have to set aside the order
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRP No.3739 of 2017
passed in REA No.9 of 2017 dated 21.04.2017. Accordingly, the order passed
in REA No.9 of 2017 in REP No.61 of 2016 in O.S.No.151 of 2015 is set aside
and the Civil Revision Petition is allowed and REA No.9 of 2017 stands
allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
14.08.2023
Index:Yes/No
Speaking order/Non-speaking order
sr
To
The Principal Subordinate Judge, Krishnagiri.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRP No.3739 of 2017
V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN,J.
sr
CRP No.3739 of 2017
14.08.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
