Allowed

Iffco Tokio General Insurance v. Farida,W/O.Mohammed Ismail

Madras HC23 Feb 2018CRP/4456/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a Civil Revision Petition against the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal's dismissal of an application to re-open evidence. The Court set aside the impugned order to provide the petitioner an opportunity to present its case.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dismissing the application to re-open evidence is set aside; the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

Iffco Tokio General Insurance Vs Farida,W/O.Mohammed Ismail — Insurance | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 23.02.2018

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE D. KRISHNAKUMAR

¶6

CRP (PD) No. 4456 of 2017
and
C.M.P NO. 21034 of 2017
Iffco Tokio General
Insurance Co. Ltd.,
4th floor, Iffco Bhavan
No.128 Habibullah Road
T. Nagar
Chennai - 600 017. .. Petitioner
Vs
1. Farida
2. Mohammed Ismail
3. V. Aakash Kumar .. Respondents

¶7

PRAYER: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to set aside the order and decreetal order dated 17.08.2017 made in M.P. No.2421 of 2017 in MCOP No. 4089 of 2014 on the file of Hon'ble Motor Accident Claims Tribunal cum Court of II Small Causes Judge, at Chennai and pass such further orders.

¶8

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶9

¶10

For Petitioner : Mr. K. Poomalai

¶11

For Respondents : Mr. A. Abdul Kani for R1 & R2

¶12

R3 - given up

¶13

O R D E R

¶14

This revision petition is filed against the order and decreetal

¶15

order dated 17.08.2017 made in M.P. No.2421 of 2017 in MCOP No. 4089

¶16

of 2014 on the file of Hon'ble Motor Accident Claims Tribunal cum II Small

¶17

Causes Court, at Chennai.

¶18

The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that

¶19

the respondents / claimants have filed MCOP No. 4089 of 2014, under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act. The aforesaid case was posted for trial and the respondents/ claimants side evidence was concluded. The

¶20

case was posted for examination of petitioner/ Insurance Company side

¶21

evidence. Pursuant to the Subpoena petition filed by the petitioner/

¶22

Insurance Company, the Investigating Officer was summoned to appear on 01.03.2017 and he also appeared. The Investigating Officer failed to

¶23

appear during the subsequent hearings and the evidence was closed on

¶24

the side of the respondents/ claimants and the case was posted for

¶25

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶26

¶27

arguments. Hence, the petitioner/ Insurance Company filed the instant application to re-open the respondent's side evidence. Although the respondents/ claimants has no objection in allowing the application, the court below dismissed the said application. Challenging the same, the

¶28

present revision petition is filed before the court below.

¶29

The learned counsel for the respondents claimants

¶30

submitted before this Court, that the respondents have no objection in allowing the application.

¶31

Considering the facts of the case and the submission of

¶32

the learned counsel for the parties, in order to provide an opportunity to the respondent Insurance Company, the order passed by the court below is liable to be set aside.

¶33

Therefore, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs.

¶34

23.02.2018

¶35

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶36

¶37

D. KRISHNAKUMAR J.,

¶38

avr

¶39

Index : Yes/ No Speaking order/ Non speaking order [Issue order copy next week ]

¶40

To The II Court of Small Causes Judge Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Chennai.

¶41

CRP (PD) No. 4456 of 2017 and C.M.P NO. 21034 of 2017

¶42

23.02.2018

¶43

http://www.judis.nic.in

Iffco Tokio General Insurance v. Farida,W/O.Mohammed Ismail

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Iffco Tokio General Insurance v. Farida,W/O.Mohammed Ismail

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Palaniammal Vs Karuppaiah

Kannan Vs Raja

Arachelvam Vs Sundarsingh

Karthik Balasubramanian Vs S. Suchitra

Andrew John Scoott Vs Pl.Murugappan

S.Mahesh Raja Singh Vs K.Saraswathy