Allowed

V.Chinnammal v. D.Shyla Shree

Madras HC15 Dec 2020CRP/2380/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a civil revision petition and exercised jurisdiction under Article 227 to restore a Motor Accident Claims petition dismissed for default. The petitioners delay of 1336 days was condoned subject to the elimination of interest for the default period, directing the Tribunal to dispose of the claim within six months.

What did the court decide?

Condonation of 1336 days delay allowed; MCOP restored to Tribunal file with direction to dispose within six months; interest excluded from date of default.

V.Chinnammal Vs D.Shyla Shree — Motor Accident Claims | Madras HC (2020)

¶1

CRP (NPD) No.2380 of 2018

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 15.12.2020

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN

¶6

CRP (NPD) No.2380 of 2018
V.Chinnammal ... Petitioner
Vs
1. D.Shyla shree
2. National Insurance Co Ltd.,
No.751, Anna Salai,
III floor, Chennai – 02. ... Respondents

¶7

Prayer: The Civil Revision petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to set aside the order made in M.P. No.2150 of 2012 in M.C.O.P. No.2651 of 2005, dated 20.10.2017 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (II Small Causes Court), Chennai.

¶8

For Petitioner : Mr.K.Varadha kamaraj For Respondents : Mrs.N.B.Surekha (for R2) O R D E R

¶9

This revision is directed against an order, dismissing an

¶10

application filed by the petitioner, seeking condonation of delay of 1336

¶11

1/5

¶12

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶13

CRP (NPD) No.2380 of 2018

¶14

days in filing a petition to restore MCOP No.2651 of 2005 which was dismissed for default on 24.10.2008.

¶15

The said MCOP was filed by the petitioner seeking

¶16

compensation of Rs.4 lakhs for the injuries suffered by him in a road accident that occurred on 15.02.2005. The injuries stated are three fractures and several multiple injuries all over the body. The reasons assigned by the

¶17

petitioner for the delay is that he could not attend the Court due to illness and he could not inform his disability to his counsel.

¶18

No doubt, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondent, the reasons assigned in the affidavit filed in support of the petition for condonation of delay is sketchy and does not explain the delay

¶19

in great detail. However, taking into account that the accident is not denied

¶20

and the fact that the petitioner suffered injuries is also not denied, I am of the considered opinion that the petitioner should be given an opportunity to prosecute the petition on merits. Dismissal of the Motor Accident Claims

¶21

petition for default can only result in the petitioner losing the valuable right

¶22

2/5

¶23

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶24

CRP (NPD) No.2380 of 2018

¶25

to be compensated. I am therefore of the opinion that the Tribunal was not justified in dismissing the application for condonation of delay. The Tribunal should have allowed the application subject to condition that the claimant will not be entitled to interest for the period of default.

¶26

In view of the above, this Civil Revision petition is allowed.

¶27

The application in M.P.No.2150 of 2012 will stand allowed. The delay of 1336 days in filing an application to restore MCOP No.2651 of 2005 is condoned. It is made clear that the petitioner will not be entitled to interest on the compensation awarded from 24.10.2008 till today i.e., 15.12.2020. Now that the delay has been condoned, I am of the opinion that further time could be saved by allowing an application to restore the Original petition by exercising power Under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

¶28

The learned counsel for the Insurance Company though would

¶29

have serious objections for condonation of delay, she magnanimously agrees that the original petition could be allowed by me to enable early disposal of

¶30

the Original claim petition.

¶31

3/5

¶32

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶33

CRP (NPD) No.2380 of 2018

¶34

In view of the above, MCOP No.2651 of 2005 is restored to the

¶35

file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (II Small Causes Court), Chennai and the Tribunal is directed to dispose of the same within a period of six months from the date of resumption of physical hearings in the Small

¶36

Causes Courts at Chennai. No costs.

¶37

15.12.2020
Note: Time bound order
vum
Index: Yes/No
Speaking order / Non speaking order
To:
The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal
(II Small causes court) Chennai.

¶38

4/5

¶39

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶40

CRP (NPD) No.2380 of 2018

¶41

R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.

¶42

vum

¶43

CRP (NPD) No.2380 of 2018
15.12.2020

¶44

5/5

¶45

http://www.judis.nic.in

V.Chinnammal v. D.Shyla Shree

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V.Chinnammal v. D.Shyla Shree

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

K.Jayasamaraj Vs Vaihnavi

Chinnasamy Vs Muniyammal

Padma Vs Vijayalakshmi

Mithiles Sharma Vs Subbarayan

I.S.Selvagandhi Vs K.G.Umasankari

D.Mani Vs P.Yuvarajan