Partly allowed

The Managing Director, v. Mariammal

Madras HC17 Dec 2021CMA(MD)/210/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court allowed the appellant's civil miscellaneous appeal in part, reducing the compensation awarded to Rs. 9,95,000 from the Tribunal's award of Rs. 11,20,000 and directed deposit of 90% of the reduced amount.

What did the court decide?

Compensation reduced to Rs. 9,95,000; Appellant directed to deposit 90% of the reduced amount with interest within 8 weeks.

The Managing Director, Vs Mariammal — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI

¶2

( Civil Appellate Jurisdiction )

¶3

Friday, the Seventeenth day of December Two Thousand Twenty one

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

The Hon`ble Mrs.Justice S.ANANTHI

¶6

CMA(MD). No.210 of 2018

¶7

THE MANAGING DIRECTOR,,

¶8

TAMIL NADU STATE CORPORATION DOOR NO.2 , VANNARPETTAI TIRUNELVELI..

¶9

... Appellant/Respondent

¶10

¶11

1 MARIAMMAL, W/O.LATE.MURUGAN, DOOR NO.107, ANNA NAGAR, 3RD STREET, ALANGULAM POST, TIRUNELVELI, DISTRICT..

¶12

... Respondent/Petitioner

¶13

Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, to set aside the decree and judgment made in M.C.O.P.No.1126 of 2015, dated 27.04.2017 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal cum Subordinate Judge, Tirrunelveli. DECREE:-

¶14

This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal having come up for final hearing on this date, upon perusing the grounds of Appeal, the order of the Tribunal and the material papers to the Appeal and upon hearing the arguments of MR.P.PRBHAKARAN,, Advocate for the Appeallant and of MR.V.SASIKUMAR, Advocate for the Respondent and this Court Allowing this appeal in part and modification only in the award and other terms are do stand, doth order and decree as follows:-

¶15

(1) That the decree and judgment made in M.C.O.P.No.1126 of 2015, dated 27.04.2017 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal cum Subordinate Judge, Tirrunelveli be and here by is reduced to Rs.9,95,000/-(Rupees Nine lakhs Nighty five thousand only)from Rs.11,20,000/- as awarded by the Tribunal.

¶16

(2) That the Appeallant herein /Transport corporation is directed to deposit 90% of compensation amount i.e., Rs.8,95,000/(Rupees eight lakhs Nighty five thousand only), less the amount already deposited, together with interest at the rate of 7.5% per https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ annum from the date of claim petition till the date of deposit to the credit of M.C.O.P.No.1126 of 2015 on the file of the Motor

¶17

Accident Claims Tribunal cum Subordinate Judge, Tirrunelveli, within a period of 8 weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order;

¶18

(3) That on such deposit being made, the Respondent/claimant be and are hereby permitted to withdraw the same by filing necessary application before the Tribunal; and

¶19

(4) That there be no costs in this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal. Sd/Assistant Registrar (CS III)

¶20

// True Copy //

¶21

/ /2022 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS)

¶22

¶23

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal cum Subordinate Judge, Tirrunelveli

¶24

Copy to:

¶25

The Section Officer, V.R. Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 2 Copies

¶26

+1 CC to M/s.V.Sasi Kumar, Advocate, SR No.39837 +1 CC to M/s.P.Prabhakaran, Advocate, SR No.39369

¶27

ORDER DATED : 17/12/2021

¶28

========================== DECREE ========================== CMA(MD). No.210 of 2018

¶29

Nature of Decree:- Allowing the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal in part preferred against the decree and judgment made in M.C.O.P.No.1126 of 2015, dated 27.04.2017 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal cum Subordinate Judge,Tirrunelveli , as stated with in.

¶30

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ MGJ(11.01.2022) 2P 6C

The Managing Director, v. Mariammal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Managing Director, v. Mariammal

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

United India Insurance Co.Ltd. Vs the Superintending Engineer

Mr.K.Pitchiamani Vs Tamil Nadu State Transport

Jeganathan, Vs J.Hemalatha

The New India Assurance Vs P. Paul Raj

P.E.Industries Vs The Employees state Insurance

National Insurance Co.Ltd., Vs Veeraiyan