Allowed

Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company Ltd. v. D.Usharani

Madras HC1 Jul 2021CRP/4016/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 challenging the dismissal of an application to implead a lorry owner and insurer. The High Court held that the order was erroneous as exclusion deprived the insurer of the chance to plead negligence. The revision was allowed, and the lower court was directed to implead the parties.

What did the court decide?

Order dated 02.01.2019 set aside; respondents fourth and fifth to be impleaded; direction to dispose of proceedings by 31.10.2021.

Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 01.07.2021

¶4

Coram

¶5

The Hon'ble Mr. Justice C.V.KARTHIKEYAN

¶6

C.R.P.PD.No.4016 of 2019 and C.M.P.No.26386 of 2019

¶7

IFFCO TOKIO General Insurance Company Ltd., 4^th Floor, IFFCO BHAVAN, No.128, Habibullah Road, T.Nagar, Chennai-600 017. ... Petitioner/Petitioner/2^nd Respondent Vs 1.D.Usharani 2.K.Doss ... Respondents/Respondents/Petitioners 3.Ramakrishnan,S.V. 4.C.Tamilselvan ... Respondent/3rd Respondent/1^st Respondent

¶8

5.Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd.,

¶9

1^st Floor, Plot No.5, Ramachandran Street, Saravana Nagar, Seevaram, Perungudi, Chennai.

¶10

...Respondent/Respondents4&T/Proposed party No.4 & 5

¶11

Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution

¶12

of India, to set aside the order and decree dated 02.01.2019 made in M.P.No.32 of 2017 in MCOP No.5955 of 2013 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal cum (Special Sub Court No.2, Motor https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ Accidents Claims Petitions) Small Causes Court, Chennai.

¶13

¶14

For Petitioner . Mr.K.Poomalai For Respondents .. M/s.V.Mohan Choudary for R1&R2 M/s.Bhuvana Sundari for R5

¶15

ORDER

¶16

This Civil Revision Petition has been filed questioning the order

¶17

dated 02.01.2019 passed in M.P.No.32 of 2017 in MCOP No.5955 of 2013 pending on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/ Special

¶18

Sub Court II, Small Causes Court, Chennai.

¶19

The second respondent in MCOP No.5955 of 2013 had filed the said Miscellaneous Petition under Order 1 Rule 10 of CPC to implead two other respondents namely, owner of the lorry bearing Registration No.TN 04 J 5037 and insurer of the said lorry, namely, Shriram General Insurance Company Limited. The said application came to be dismissed necessitating to file the present revision petition.

¶20

The reason given in the order rejecting the said application was

¶21

that the application has been filed approximately at the last stage of trial. As a matter of fact, the learned Judge appears to have gone through the required materials which are not relied upon at the stage of trial. The question as to whether the accident took place by negligence of the driver https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/

¶22

¶23

of the lorry or not, should be determined only based on the evidence. On

¶24

that one ground itself, the order has to be set aside.

¶25

One ground to be determined under Order 1 Rule 10 of C.P.C. is

¶26

whether any order passed, would directly or indirectly affect the interest of the proposed party in MCOP No.5955 of 2013. Even if it is found that

¶27

owing to parking of the lorry, the accident had occurred by the fault of driver of the lorry, the interest of the insurer, namely, Shriram General Insurance Company Ltd., would be affected. Therefore, they are necessary parties and their presence is required to put forth their contentions before the Tribunal to ensure the principles of natural justice.

¶28

5.Therefore, the order passed in M.P.No.32 of 2017 in MCOP

¶29

No.5955 of 2013 is hereby set aside and the Civil Revision Petition is allowed. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal cum (Special Sub Court

¶30

No.2,), Small Causes Court, Chennai, is directed to implead the proposed parties as fourth and fifth respondents in MCOP No.5955 of 2013 and the Tribunal is directed to proceed further with trial in MCOP No.5955 of 2013 and directed to give an opportunity for further pleading

¶31

if any by the respective parties to dispose of the MCOP No.5599 of 2013

¶32

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

¶33

¶34

on or before 31.10.2021. No order as to costs. Consequently, the

¶35

connected Civil Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

¶36

01.07.2021
Internet:Yes/No
Index:Yes/No
kal
To
The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal
cum (Special Sub Court No.2, ),
Small Causes Court, Chennai,
C.V.KARTHIKEYAN,J.
kal

¶37

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

¶38

¶39

C.R.P.PD.No.4016 of 2019 and C.M.P.No.26386 of 2019

¶40

01.07.2021

¶41

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

Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company Ltd. v. D.Usharani

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company Ltd. v. D.Usharani

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ponnusamy Vs Kandasamy

Valliammal Vs Kumar Alias Palaniappan

T. Senthilkumar Vs T. Gomathi

The Mudaliar Educational Trust Vs N.M.Sundarar

M.Suresh Kumar Vs Jeyalakshmi

R.Suresh Vs Thajnisha Begam