The High Court of Madras dismissed Civil Revision Petitions filed by Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation challenging docket orders of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. The Court held the petitions were abuse of process.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
C.R.P.(NPD).Nos.2011 & 2012 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 14.06.2021
CORAM
THE HON'BLE Ms. JUSTICE R.N.MANJULA
C.R.P.(NPD).Nos.2011 & 2012 of 2016
and
C.M.P.Nos.10478 & 10479 of 2016
Tamil Nadu State Transport
Corporation Limited,
rep. By its Managing Director,
Villupuram. ... Petitioner in both CRP(NPD)s
Vs.
N.Rekharukmani ... Respondent in CRP(NPD).2011/2016
K.Narayanan ... Respondent in CRP(NPD).2012/2016
PRAYER in CRP (NPD) 2011/2016 : The Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the docket order dated 21.06.2016 made in Unnumbered I.A. of 2016 in M.C.O.P.No.197 of 2008 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Subordinate Judge, Arni.
PRAYER in CRP (NPD) 2012/2016 : The Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the docket order dated 21.06.2016 made in Unnumbered I.A of 2016 in M.C.O.P.No.300 of 2008 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Subordinate Judge, Arni.
1/6
C.R.P.(NPD).Nos.2011 & 2012 of 2016
In both CRPs
For Petitioner : Mr.K.Selvakumar For Respondent : Mr.S.Sathiaseelan
COMMON ORDER
(Heard through video conferencing)
These Civil Revision Petitions have been filed by challenging the docket
orders dated 21.06.2016 made in Unnumbered I.A. of 2016 in M.C.O.P.Nos.197 and M.C.O.P. 300 of 2008 respectively, on the file of the
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Subordinate Judge, Arni. Since the issues involved in these petitions are identical, they are disposed through a common order.
2. The submissions made by both side counsels heard and records perused.
3. These petitions have been filed by the State Transport Corporation, who
was a respondent in the Original Petition, on the allegations that the award
which has been passed basing on the compromise arrived in Mega Lok Adalat
on 25.08.2014 should be converted into a contested award.
4. Whenever a matter is compromised and a memo is filed before the
tribunal, it has no other choice except to pass an award basing on the compromise memo.
2/6
C.R.P.(NPD).Nos.2011 & 2012 of 2016
5 . Once such a compromise award is passed, the tribunal has become functus officio, so far as the passing of decree is concerned, and it doesn't have the power change one type of decree into another type of decree. Hence the request of the petitioner to convert the nature of the award from Compromise award to Contest Award is not possible. And such a course of action is neither legal.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in the joint memo filed before the Court the signature of the counsels alone was made and the parties
did not sign and the petitioner is not a party to the memo. But the affidavits of
the petitioner filed in both the unnumbered petitions would show that the petitioner was aware of the compromise and he also accepted the fact of negotiations made in Meha Lok Adalat. Only in pursuance of such negotiations,
the understanding between the parties as to the quantum of compensation has been arrived. Only in pursuance of that the joint memo has also been filed and
the award has been passed. When the petitioner is aware of those things and has admitted them in his affidavit themselves, it is not open to him to challenge the award passed by this tribunal or file a petition with the prayer to change the type of the award passed by the tribunal.
3/6
C.R.P.(NPD).Nos.2011 & 2012 of 2016
7. Since these petitions are abuse of process of Court, they are not maintainable. The tribunal is right in rejecting the same as not maintainable. Hence I find no reason to interfere with the orders of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Subordinate Judge, Arni passed in I.A.Nos. Unnumbered of 2016 in M.C.O.P.Nos.197 and 300 of 2008 respectively.
In the result, the Civil Revision Petitions in C.R.P.(NPD).Nos.2011 of 2016 and 2012 of 2016, stand dismissed . No costs. Consequently, connected civil miscellaneous petitions in C.M.P.Nos.10478 & 10479 of 2016 are also closed. 14.06.2021 Speaking/Non-speaking Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No jrs
To http://www.judis.nic.in 4/6
C.R.P.(NPD).Nos.2011 & 2012 of 2016
5/6
C.R.P.(NPD).Nos.2011 & 2012 of 2016
R.N.MANJULA,J.
jrs
C.R.P.(NPD).Nos.2011 & 2012 of 2016
and
C.M.P.Nos.10478 & 10479 of 2016
14.06.2021
6/6
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal can convert a compromise award into a contested award after becoming functus officio.
Whether challenging a compromise award where the petitioner admitted the compromise in their affidavit is an abuse of process.
Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Limited
Rekharukmani
Narayanan
R.N. Manjula
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
