Allowed

M.D.Mukund Arvind v. K.Bhoopathy

Madras HC21 Jan 2019CRP/773/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court set aside a non-speaking order rejecting a petition to condone inordinate delay in a motor accident claim. The Court held the Tribunal failed to discuss reasons for rejection, condoned the delay, and allowed respondents to seek waiver of interest.

What did the court decide?

The order dated 18.01.2018 set aside; delay of 1,668 days condoned; liberty granted to respondent to seek waiver of interest.

M.D.Mukund Arvind Vs K.Bhoopathy — Motor Accident Claims | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 21.01.2019

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.S.RAMESH

¶6

C.R.P. (NPD) No. 773 of 2018
M.D.Mukund Arvind ...Petitioner
Vs
1. K.Bhoopathy
2. ICICI Lombard General Insurance
Company Limited, No. 84 & 85, Arihant Plaza,
Walltax Road, Chennai – 600 003.
...Respondents

¶7

Prayer: Civil Revision Petitions filed under Section 115 of Civil Rules of Practice, to set aside the decree and order dated 18.01.2018 made in M.P.No.3814 of 2017 in M.C.O.P.No.1159 of 2011 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chennai [in the Court of Small Causes, Chennai].

¶8

For Petitioner : M/s.S.Jayasankar
For Respondents : Mrs.R.Sreevidhya (for R.2)
No appearance for R.1
ORDER

¶9

The order under challenge in the present revision is rejection of the

¶10

petitioner’s application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone

¶11

the delay of 1,668 days in filing an application to set aside the exparte order of http://www.judis.nic.in

¶12

¶13

dismissal.

¶14

The reason assigned by the petitioner herein before the Tribunal

¶15

is that due to the injuries sustained by the claimant, he had partially lost his memory and hence had totally forgotten about the case. The Tribunal had in one line cryptic order dismissed the said application stating that the “delay

¶16

had not been sufficiently explained.”

¶17

In an application seeking for condoning an inordinate delay, there

¶18

is duty cast on the Tribunal to discuss the reasons assigned by the applicant for the delay caused and such an application can be rejected only after giving

¶19

proper explanation and justification for its rejection.

¶20

In the present case, the Tribunal had not discussed any of the

¶21

reasons cited by the petitioner. As a matter of fact, the reason assigned by the

¶22

petitioner herein that he had a partial memory loss due to accident seems to be acceptable and the Tribunal ought to have atleast discussed about the reasons assigned.

¶23

As such, I do not find any justification for the non-speaking

¶24

rejection order. Consequently, the order dated 18.01.2018 passed in MP

¶25

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶26

¶27

No.3814/2017 in MC No.1159/2011 is set aside and the delay of 1,668 days in filing the petition to set aside the exparte order of dismissal dated 02.04.2013 is condoned.

¶28

At this juncture, the learned counsel for the respondent

¶29

submitted that since the delay as such is inordinate, they may be given liberty to have the interest, if any ordered, waived. This Court is also of the view that

¶30

the petitioner should not be given the benefit of the interest on the award

¶31

amount, if any for the period of delay.

¶32

Hence, it would be open to the respondent herein to seek for

¶33

waiver of interest for the delay of 1,668 days in filing the application to set aside the exparte decree.

¶34

Accordingly, the present Civil Revision Petition stands ordered. No

¶35

costs.

¶36

Index:Yes/No

¶37

Speaking Order: Yes/No

¶38

mrm

¶39

http://www.judis.nic.in

M.S.RAMESH.,J

mrm

C.R.P. (NPD) No. 773 of 2018

¶44

21.01.2019

¶45

http://www.judis.nic.in

M.D.Mukund Arvind v. K.Bhoopathy

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.D.Mukund Arvind v. K.Bhoopathy

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

Thulasimani Vs Maheswari

M.Mohamed Bathusha Vs D.Sivaprakasam

Vinod Vs Minor Dhakshan

R. Kabeerdas Vs P.R. Jayanthi

Senthil Kumar Vs Meerabai

Minor Ganesh S/O. Late Vs Shanmugam