Dismissed

The Managing Director v. Vignesh (Minor)

Madras HC23 Dec 2021CMP/21359/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this petition for condonation of delay, the petitioner sought to file a civil miscellaneous appeal against a low compensation award of Rs. 25,000. The petitioner claimed a 72-day delay was caused by attempted settlement and seeking legal opinion. The court rejected the reasons as insufficient and dismissed the petition, leading to the rejection of the principal appeal.

What did the court decide?

The petition for condonation of delay is dismissed with consequent rejection of the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal. No costs.

The Managing Director Vs Vignesh (Minor) — Motor Accident Claims | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

C.M.P.No.21359 of 2021

¶2

in C.M.A.Sr.No.51546 of 2019

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶4

DATED: 23.12.2021

¶5

CORAM:

¶6

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN

¶7

C.M.P.No.21359 of 2021 and

¶8

C.MA.Sr.No.51546 of 2019

¶9

The Managing Director Metropolitan Transport Corporation Ltd., Anna Salai, Chennai – 2.

.. Petitioner

Vs.

Vignesh (Minor)

.. Respondent

PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Petition filed under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act praying to condone the delay of 72 days in C.M.A.Sr.No.51546 of 2019 in pertinent to the judgment and decree dated 04.10.2018 made in M.C.O.P.No.7672 of 2013 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (III Small Causes Court), Chennai.

¶15

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Sivakumar

¶16

¶17

1/4

¶18

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶19

O R D E R

¶20

C.M.P.No.21359 of 2021 in C.M.A.Sr.No.51546 of 2019

¶21

The petitioner seeks condonation of delay of 72 days in filing the

¶22

Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.

¶23

2. The appeal is directed against the award of the Motor Accidents

¶24

Claims Tribunal granting a sum of Rs.25,000/- to the respondent as compensation.

¶25

3. The reasons assigned for the delay is that the award was passed on 04.10.2018 and the copies were received on 08.11.2018. It is claimed that the appellant/ Transport Corporation attempted to settle the matter amicably. Since the attempt failed, it had taken legal opinion and filed the appeal. In that process the delay of 72 days had occurred.

¶26

4. I do not think this would make out a sufficient cause for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. Moreover the award is only for a sum of Rs.25,000/-. I therefore do not see any reason to

¶27

2/4

¶28

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶29

C.M.P.No.21359 of 2021

¶30

in C.M.A.Sr.No.51546 of 2019

¶31

entertain this Petition and it is accordingly dismissed. In view of the dismissal of this Civil Miscellaneous Petition, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal in C.M.A.Sr.No.51546 of 2019 stands rejected at the SR stage. No costs.

¶32

23.12.2021

¶33

dsa

¶34

Index : No Speaking order

¶35

To The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, III Small Causes Court, Chennai.

¶36

3/4

¶37

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶38

C.M.P.No.21359 of 2021

¶39

in C.M.A.Sr.No.51546 of 2019

¶40

R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.

¶41

dsa

¶42

C.M.P.No.21359 of 2021 and C.MA.Sr.No.51546 of 2019

¶43

23.12.2021

¶44

4/4

¶45

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

The Managing Director v. Vignesh (Minor)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Managing Director v. Vignesh (Minor)

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. Ramya Vs R.P. Dayalan

Samsudeen Vs R. Jayaraman

Palani Asari (DIED)1.P.MANI Vs C.Don Bosco

Eva Laberibe Vs S.Radhakrishnan

M/s.Spicejet Limited Vs M/s.Credit Suisse Ag, Rep.by its Power of Attorney Agent mr.Rovert Pavery

B.Vellaiammal Vs G.Rethinaraj (Since Deceased)