Partly allowed

Kandasamy v. Sathishkumar

Madras HC9 Apr 2018CMA(MD)/182/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench increased compensation awarded in a motor accident case. The court enhanced the sum and directed the insurance company to deposit the increased amount at 7.5% interest, permitting immediate withdrawal without further application.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced from Rs.1,96,100 to Rs.2,81,100; deposit directed from insurer with 7.5% interest; withdrawal permitted without formal application.

Kandasamy Vs Sathishkumar — Motor Accident Claims | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶2

Monday, the Ninth day of April Two Thousand and Eighteen

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

The Hon`ble Mrs.Justice J.NISHA BANU

¶5

CMA(MD) No.182 of 2013

¶6

Kandasamy

¶7

... Appellant/Petitioner

¶8

Vs.

¶9

1.Sathishkumar

¶10

2.The New India Assurance Company Ltd., through its Branch Manager, First Floor, Pillars Gate, Bahamore Road, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District. ... Respondents /Respondents

¶11

Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the Judgment and Decree made in MCOP No.492 of 2011 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Fast Track Court No.2), Tirunelveli dated 29.12.2011.

¶12

DECREE: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal coming on for hearing on this day upon perusing the grounds of Appeal, the order of the Lower Court, and the material papers relating to this case and upon hearing the arguments of Mr.T.Selva Kumaran, Advocate for the Appellant and of MR.J.S.Murali, Advocate for the 2^nd respondent and the first respondent not appeared either in person or by an Advocate and in modification of the Award of the Tribunal below and this Court while allowing this Appeal in part doth order and decree as follows:-

¶13

i) That the compensation awarded by the Tribunal be hereby is enhanced from Rs.1,96,100/- (Rupees One Lakh Ninety Six Thousand and One Hundred only) to Rs.2,81,100/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Eighty One Thousand and one Hundred only) (Rs.1,96,100/- awarded by the tribunal +Rs.8,500 enhanced by this Court towards disability and Transportation)

¶14

ii) That the 2^nd respondent herein/Insurance company be and hereby is directed to deposit the sum of Rs.2,81,100/-Rupees Two Lakhs Eighty One Thousand and one Hundred only) towards compensation with interest @ 7.5%, instead of 8%, excluding the sum already deposited, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶15

Iii) That on such deposit being made the Appellant/Claimant herein be and hereby is permitted to withdraw the same with accused https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ interests and Costs without filing any formal Application before the Tribunal.

¶16

iv) That as far as pay and recovery is concerned, the 2^nd respondent herein/Insurance Company be and hereby is directed to deposit the award amount and recover the same from the first respondent, which does not warrant any interference at the hands of this Court and the same do stands confirmed.

¶17

v) That there be no costs in this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal. Sd/Assistant Registrar(RTI)

¶18

/True Copy/

¶19

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶20

¶21

The Fast Track Court No.2, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Tirunelveli.

¶22

Copy to:

¶23

The Section Officer, V.R.Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. (2 copies)

¶24

1 cc TO Mr.T.Selvakumaran , Advocate in SR No. 60762 + 1 cc TO Mr.J.S.Muralai , Advocate in SR No. 60390

¶25

ORDER DATED :09/04/2018 DECREE

¶26

CMA(MD) No.182 of 2013

¶27

Nature of the DECREE: Allowing this Appeal in part preferred against the Judgment and decree of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Fast Track Court No.2) Tirunelveli made in M.C.O.P.No.492 of 2011 dated 29.12.2011 etc., as stated within.

¶28

AE/RSK/SAR1/22.05.2018/2P/6C

¶29

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

Kandasamy v. Sathishkumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kandasamy v. Sathishkumar

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

Chairman Tamil Nadu Vs M.Rajapandian

G.Ramalingam, Vs the Management of Tamilnadu

The Joint Director of Medical Vs S.S.Mariappan

The Managing Director Vs T. Ramakrishnan

K.Rakkammal, Vs Tamil Nadu State Transport

Dr.S. Vel Aravind Managing Vs Dr. Radhakrishnan