Madras High Court
The Branch Manager vs Balasundari on 13 October, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 13-10-2025
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.B. BALAJI
CRP (NPD) NO. 4873 of 2025
& CMP.No.24585 of 2025
The Branch Manager
Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Aranthangi Taluk,
Pudukottai District.
Petitioner/4th Respondent
Vs
1. Balasundari
W/o. Late Selvam
... 1st Respondent/Petitioner
2. Rukhmani Sundaresan
W/o. Sundaresan
... 2nd Respondent/1st Respondent
3. The Branch Manager
United India Insurance Co. Ltd.,
No.77-79, Royapettah High Road
Chennai – 600 014.
... 3rd Respondents/2nd
Respondent
1/4
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 15/10/2025 08:37:17 pm )
4. Chinnappan
... 4th Respondent/3rd
Respondent
PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of Constitution
of India against the Judgment and Decree dated 05.12.2023 made in
M.C.O.P.No. 256 of 2021 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal/Additional District Judge, (Fast Track Mahila Court) F.A.I/c,
Nagapattinam.
***
For Petitioner(s): Mr. Siva Kollapan B
ORDER
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.
2. The petitioner was the fourth respondent in M.C.O.P proceedings
on the file of Fast Track Mahila Court, Nagapattinam. The claimant sought
for compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- for alleged injuries sustained by him in
an accident on 10.03.2019. The Tribunal after trial awarded a sum of
Rs.20,000/- as compensation and fastened 50% of the liability on the
revision petitioner as there are two vehicles involved in the accident
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 15/10/2025 08:37:17 pm )
namely, as Innova and a TATA ACE, which is insured with the present
revision petitioner.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner states that the revision
petition has been filed challenging negligence alone and not the quantum.
4. I find that there is absolutely no iota of evidence to establish that
there was no negligence on the part of the TATA ACE vehicle. The
Tribunal has rightly considered the evidence oral and documentary and
come to the conclusion that both the insurers would be equally and jointly
liable to pay compensation to the victim. Considering the injuries sustained
by the claimant, the Tribunal has awarded only a sum of Rs.20,000/- as
against the claim of Rs.1,00,000/-, I do not see any grounds made out,
challenging the well reasoned award of the Tribunal. Hence, there is no
merits in the Revision.
5. Accordingly, this Civil Revision Petition stands dismissed.
Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition stands closed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 15/10/2025 08:37:17 pm )
P.B. BALAJI, J.
vsg
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner
by mistake has deposited a sum of Rs.25,000/- though the liability of the
petitioner is only at Rs.10,000/-, together with proportionate interest.
7. The petitioner is at liberty to file application for excess amount
and if any such application shall be filed, the Tribunal shall entertain the
same.
13-10-2025
vsg
To
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District
Judge, (Fast Track Mahila Court) F.A.I/c,
Nagapattinam.
CRP (NPD) NO. 4873 of 2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 15/10/2025 08:37:17 pm )
