Partly allowed

The Branch Manager, v. Rengarajan

Madras HC16 Aug 2021CMA(MD)/987/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madras High Court allowed a Civil Miscellaneous Appeal partly, modifying the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal's award. The compensation was reduced from Rs.4,15,785/- to Rs.3,60,185/-, with an order for deposit and withdrawal. No interest is awarded for the default period.

What did the court decide?

Award reduced to Rs. 3,60,185/. Deposit the amount with interest at 7.5% p.a. Claimant permitted to withdraw after deducting prior receipt.

The Branch Manager, Vs Rengarajan — Motor Accident Claims | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT (Civil Appellate Jurisdiction)

¶2

Monday, the Sixteenth day of August Two Thousand Twenty One

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

The Hon`ble Mrs.Justice R.THARANI

¶5

CMA(MD). No.987 of 2013

¶6

THE BRANCH MANAGER, UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD. GANESH COMPLEX KANTONMENT TRICHY-1 ..

¶7

.. Appellant / 2^nd Respondent

¶8

¶9

1 RENGARAJAN, S/O.NARAYANASAMY, 1913-15/2, NORTH, RAJAVEETHI, PUDUKOTTAI .. 1^st Respondent / Claimant

¶10

2 KALAIYARASAN, S/O.JEYARAMAN, 7/52, POST OFFICE ROAD,, THUVAHAKUDIMALAI, TRICHY-22. (R2 STOOD, EXPARTE BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL).. 2^nd Respondent / 1^st Respondent

¶11

Prayer:-

¶12

Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 preferred against the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, III Additional Subordinate Judge, Tiruchirapalli made in MCOP No.2269 of 2004 dated 12.10.2012.

¶13

DECREE:-

¶14

This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal having come up for final hearing on Monday, Ninteenth day of July Two thousand and twenty one, upon perusing the grounds of Appeal, the order of the Tribunal and the material papers to the Appeal and upon hearing the arguments of Mrs.VIJAYAKUMARI NATARAJAN, Advocate for the Appellant and of Mr.PRASANNA VINOTH, Advocate for the first respondent, having stood over for consideration till this date, while Allowing this Appeal in part and modifying the award of the Tribunal, and this Court doth order and decree as follows:-

¶15

(1) That the award amount is reduced from Rs.4,15,785/- to Rs.3,60,185/- (Rupees Three Lakhs sixty thousand one hundred and eighty five only).

¶16

(2) That the appellant / Insurance Company is directed to deposit https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Rs.3,60,185/- along with interest at the rate of 7.5% p.a. from the

¶17

1/2

¶18

date of petition till the date of deposit with cost within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment, if not already deposited.

¶19

(3) That on such deposit being made, the first respondent /injured claimant is permitted to withdraw the entire award amount, after deducting amount, if any, already received by him.

¶20

(4) That the claimant is not entitled for interest for the default period, if there is any default.

¶21

(5) That there be no order as to costs in this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.

¶22

// True Copy //

¶23

/ /2021

¶24

Sub Assistant Registrar(CS)

¶25

¶26

THE III ADDITIONAL SUBORDIANTE JUDGE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL. TRICHIRAPALLI.

¶27

Copy to:

¶28

The Section Officer, V.R. Section,

¶29

Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 2 Copies +1 CC to M/s.B.PRASANNNA VINOTH, Advocate ( SR-26422 dt. 16/08/2021 +1 CC to M/s.S.NATARAJAN, Advocate ( SR-26479 dt. 17/08/2021)

¶30

ORDER DATED : 16/08/2021

¶31

========================== DECREE ==========================

¶32

CMA(MD). No.987 of 2013

¶33

Nature of Decree:- Partly Allowing the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal preferred against the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,III Additional Subordinate Judge, Trichirapalli made in MCOP No.2269 of 2004 dated 12.10.2012 and etc., as stated therein

¶34

KB(03.09.2021) 2P 6C

¶35

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶36

2/2

The Branch Manager, v. Rengarajan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Branch Manager, v. Rengarajan

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.Periyasamy (Died) Vs Saraswathi

S.Deepika Vs M/S.Arasan Vinayan Systems

C.Selvi Vs M/S.Arasan Vinayan Systems

Branch Manager, Vs Jalal

Nallammal Vs Ramesh

S.Banumathi, F/54 Yrs, Vs Kanniga Devi (Converted to