Partly allowed

L.Anitha, v. the State Tamil Nadu

Madras HC21 Feb 2017CMP(MD)/810/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of Madras High Court dismissed this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal. It modified the impugned judgment by setting aside 10% contributory negligence and fixing compensation at Rs. 11,74,000. The Court directed the appellant and fourth respondent to deposit 50% of their shares of the compensation to the claimants' credit.

What did the court decide?

Contribution of 50% of shares of compensation to be deposited with interest and costs to the credit of the claim petition.

L.Anitha, Vs the State Tamil Nadu — Motor Accident Claims | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶2

Tuesday, the Twenty Fifth day of September Two Thousand Eighteen PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE J.NISHA BANU

¶4

Civil Miscellaneous Appeal(MD) No.810 of 2017

¶5

THE COMMISSIONER, THENI ALLINAGARAM MUNICIPALITY, THENI. ... APPELLANT VS.

¶6

1)THIRU.MURUGAN S/O.CHINNASAMY THEVAR, SAMAIKADU, ADUKKUM REVENUE VILLAGE, KODAIKANAL TALUK, DINDIGUL DISTRICT.

¶7

2)TMT.JAYALAXIMI W/O. MURUGAN, SAMAIKADU, ADUKKAM REVENUE VILLAGE, KODAIKANAL TALUK, DINDIGUL DISTRICT.

¶8

3)P.KUMAR S/O.PERIYAKARUPPA THEVAR, 75, KUNNUR, ANDIPATTI TALUK, THENI DISTRICT.

¶9

4)THE BRANCH MANAGER, ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, THENI. ... RESPONDENTS

¶10

Prayer:

¶11

Civil Miscellanous Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgment and decree dated 10.06.2016 made in MCOP.No.74 of 2015 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Chief Judicial Magistrate Court), Theni.

¶12

ORDER : This Appeal coming on for hearing on this day and upon perusing the Grounds of Appeal, the Judgement and Decree of the Lower court and the material papers in the Appeal and upon hearing the the arguments of Mr.K.Hemakarthikeyan Advocate for the Appellant and of Mr.KPS. Palanivelrajan Advocate for the Respondent 1 and 2 and of Mr.C.Jawahar Ravindran Advocate for the fourth respondent and none appeared on behalf of third respondent, this Court while dismissing this Appeal, doth order and decree as follows:

¶13

1.that the Judgemnt and Decree dated.10/06/2016 made in https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ MCOP.No.74/2015 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Theni( Chief Judicial Magistrate Court), Theni. be

¶14

and hereby are modified by setting aside the fixation of 10% of Contributory negligence and fixing the quantum of compensation as Rs.11,7,000/-(Rupees elevan lakhs seventy four thousand only);

¶15

2.That the appellant and 4^th respondent be and hereby are directed to deposit 50% of their respective shares out of the total quantumof compensation of Rs.11,74,000/-(Rupees elevan lakshs seventy four thousand only) with proportinate interest and costs to the credit of the claim petition, less the amount already deposited, if any;

¶16

3.that on such deposit, the respondents 1 and 2/claimants be and hereby are permitted to withdraw the same in the ratio apportioned by the Tribunal without filling any formal permission petition before the Tribunal;

¶17

4.that there be no costs in this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal Sd/Assistant Registrar(co)

¶18

/True Copy/

¶19

Sub Assistant Registrar(cs-I)

¶20

¶21

The Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Theni.

¶22

Copy TO: The Section officer VR Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.(2 COPIES)

¶23

+1cc to Mr.K.Hemakarthikeyan Advocate in SR.No.86908 +1cc to Mr.K.P.S.Palanivelrajan Advocate in SR.No.86361

¶24

ORDER DATED:25.09.2018 DEGREE

¶25

CMP(MD) No.810 of 2017 Dismissing this Appeal etc., as stated within S.P PM SAR1 30.01.2019 2P 6C

¶26

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

L.Anitha, v. the State Tamil Nadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

L.Anitha, v. the State Tamil Nadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

E. Erulandi Vs the Superintendent of Police

Y.Franklin Prakash Vs the Superintendent of Police

Sathia Vs the Secretary to the Govt.

Smt.M.Panchavarnam, Vs the Indian Oil Corporation

M.Mariyammal A-58 Vs the Superintendent of Police

R.Sornam, Vs the Superintendent of Police