Partly allowed

Sumi P. Thomas v. T.Teekaram

Madras HC17 Jul 2020CMA/2105/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a civil miscellaneous appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The Tribunal's award of Rs.43,96,000 was enhanced to Rs.67,33,400 with interest at 7.5% p.a. The apportionment of shares was confirmed, and the minor's share was ordered to be deposited in a fixed deposit.

What did the court decide?

Enhanced the Tribunal award to Rs.67,33,400 with 7.5% p.a. interest. Confirmed apportionment. Ordered deposit of minor's share in a fixed deposit scheme.

Sumi P. Thomas Vs T.Teekaram — Motor Accident Claims | Madras HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

FRIDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF JULY
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY

¶3

PRESENT :

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBBIAH
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN

¶5

CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO.2105 OF 2013

¶6

1.Sumi P.Thomas

¶7

2.Alka Anish (Minor)
 Minor rep. By her mother and
 Natural guardian sumi P.Thomas)

¶8

3.Mollykutty Abraham
4.K.P.Abraham ...Appellants / Petitioners

¶9

Vs

¶10

1.T.Teekaram

¶11

2.The New India Assurance Co.Ltd.,
 No.514/515, Gandhi Road,
 Kancheepuram.
 (now operating from Motor Third
 Party Claims Office,
 No.45, Moore Street,Chennai-1) ...Respondents / Respondents

¶12

Prayer : Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the award and Decree dated
24.11.2011 made in M.C.O.P.No.3199 of 2007 on the file of Motor
Accidents Claims Tribunal, Chief Judge, Court of Small Causes,
Chennai.

¶13

Decree : This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal coming on for hearing
on this day upon perusing the grounds of Appeal, the award of
the Tribunal below and the material papers in this case and upon

¶14

hearing the arguments of Mr.G.Balaji Prasad, Advocate for the
Appellant and M/s.M.B.Gopalan, Advocate for the 2nd Respondent,
1st Respondent remained exparte before the tribunal, this Court
while allowing the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal in part by
modifying the award of the Tribunal, doth order and decree as
follows :-

¶15

1. That the order and Decree of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal / Chief Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai made in M.C.O.P.No.3199 of 2007, dated 24.11.2011, be and hereby enhanced from a sum of Rs.43,96,000/- (Rupees Forty Three Lakhs Ninty Six Thousand Only) to a sum of Rs.67,33,400/(Rupees Sixty Seven Lakhs Thirty Three Thousand Four Hundred only) with interest at the rate of 7.5% p.a. from the date of claim petition till the date of payment;

¶16

2. That the apportionment of shares adopted by the Tribunal, shall stands confirmed;

¶17

3. That the 2^nd appellant / minor claimant share shall be deposited in any one of the Nationalised Bank in any interest bearing Fixed Deposit scheme till she attains majority and the interest thereon shall be withdrawn by the first petitioner / first claimant (mother) once in three months;

¶18

4. That on such deposit, the appellants 1,3 & 4 / claimants 1,3 & 4 herein are permitted to withdraw the enhanced award amount along with interest and costs, less the amount if any, already withdrawn.

¶19

5. That there be no costs in this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.

¶20

Sd/-

¶21

Deputy Registrar (CS)

¶22

// True Copy //

¶23

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶24

cs

¶25

To

¶26

1.The Presiding Officer/Chief Judge, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Court of Small Causes, Chennai.

¶27

+1cc to M/s.G.Balaji Prasad, Advocate, Sr.No.24832

¶28

DATED : 17.07.2020

¶29

DECREE

¶30

C.M.A.No.2105 of 2013

¶31

Nature of Decree : Partly
AllowingtheCivil
Miscellaneous Appeal preferred
against the judgment and Decree
dated 24.11.2011 made in
M.C.O.P.No.3199 of 2007 on the
file of Motor Accidents Claims
Tribunal, Chief Judge, Court of
Small Causes, Chennai, etc. as
stated therein.

¶32

RP(CO)

¶33

RVM(22/10/2021)

Sumi P. Thomas v. T.Teekaram

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sumi P. Thomas v. T.Teekaram

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

M/S. Cholamandalam Ms General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Vanitha

Manjula Narashimchan Vs S. Venkatachari

Prem Sankar Vs Subhashini

K.P. Abraham Vs T.Teekaram

C.O.Abraham Vs T.Teekaram

Ajmol Abraham Vs T.Teekaram