Dismissed

Thilagavathy v. Anitha

Madras HC12 Nov 2022CMA/2201/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Lok Adalat award disposed of a Civil Miscellaneous Appeal against a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal order. The High Court Legal Services Committee facilitated a settlement where respondents agreed to pay Rs. 1,50,000 extra over the awarded amount, leading to the dismissal of the appeal with full settlement.

What did the court decide?

The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal was dismissed. The respondents were directed to deposit an additional Rs. 1,50,000 as a final settlement.

Thilagavathy Vs Anitha — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

HIGH COURT LEGAL SERVICES COMMITTEE, CHENNAI National Lok Adalat-I organised by the High Court Legal Services Committee Saturday, the 11^th day of December, 2021 LOK ADALAT AWARD

¶3

(Chapter VI and u/s 21 of Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987)

¶4

Presided over by

¶5

The Hon'ble Mr.JUSTICE B. GOKULDAS (Retd.) and

¶6

Members

¶7

Mr.C.Raghavan, District Judge (Retd)

¶8

Mr.Pa.Kadirvel, Advocate

¶9

C.M.A.2201 of 2021

¶10

(This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed against the Judgement and Decree in M.C.O.P.No.2060 of 2016 dated 22.02.2021 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal / Chief Judicial Magistrate (FAC), Cuddalore.

¶11

Thilagavathy .. Appellant

¶12

Vs.

¶13

1.Anitha 2.United India Insurance Company Limited, Third Party Service Hub, Plot Nos.35,36,37, AR Plaza, 45 Feet Rpad. Balaji Nagar Extension, Saram, Puducherry – 605 001 .. Respondents

¶14

This case is taken up for settlement before the Lok Adalat. Both parties are present. The learned counsel for the appellant Ms.Ramya V.Rao and the learned counsel for 2^nd respondent Mr.M.Muthukrishnan are present. After mutual discussion, negotiation, mediation and conciliation between both parties, they arrived at a compromise to settle the matter as follows:

¶15

1/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶16

¶17

TERMS OF SETTLEMENT

¶18

The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.1,91,680/- with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till the date of deposit.

¶19

Not satisfied with the award of the Tribunal, the claimant / appellant has preferred the present appeal for enhancement. After due deliberations, both the parties have agreed to a sum of Rs.1,50,000/(Rupees one lakh and fifty thousand only) over and above the amount awarded by the Tribunal in full quit as compensation.

¶20

The second respondent / Insurance Company is directed to deposit the above said award amount within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶21

On such deposit being made, the appellant is permitted to withdraw the settled amount of Rs.1,50,000/- (Rupees one lakh and fifty thousand only) along with the amount already awarded by the Tribunal, if not already withdrawn, before the Tribunal without filing any formal petition.

¶22

2/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶23

¶24

The Tribunal is directed to issue the cheque to the party concerned on proper identification in accordance with the terms of the award, without insisting on any formal petition. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is disposed of accordingly.

¶25

Thilagavathy Counsel for the Appellant

¶26

United India Insurance Company Limited, Third Party Service Hub, Plot Nos.35,36,37, AR Plaza, 45 Feet Rpad. Balaji Nagar Extension, Saram, Puducherry – 605 001 Counsel for 2^nd respondent

¶27

This Lok Adalat award is passed in terms of the above settlement.

¶28

The Court fee paid shall be refunded to the appellant in the manner provided under Section 69-A of the Tamil Nadu Court-Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1955 and the Court Fees Act, 1870 as provided for under sub Sec.1 of Section 21 r/w 25 of LSA Act 1987 as amended in 1994.

Judge

Member

Member

The parties/Advocate concerned Copy to:

¶34

1.The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal /Chief Judicial Magistrate (FAC), Cuddalore.

¶35

3/5

¶36

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

¶37

¶38

2.The Secretary, High Court Legal Services Committee, Chennai.

¶39

3.The Section Officer, V.R.Section, High Court, Madras.

¶40

4.The Section Officer, Lok Adalat Section, High Court, Madras+2 copies srn/mrp

¶41

4/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶42

¶43

B. GOKULDAS (Retd.)

¶44

srn/mrp

¶45

C.M.A.2201 of 2021

¶46

11.12.2021

¶47

5/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Thilagavathy v. Anitha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Thilagavathy v. Anitha

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

S.Lokanathan, Vs the Director

S. Dharman Vs Tamilnadu Electricity Board

P.A. Appasamy Vs the Inspectr Genral of Police

The General Manager Vs Thangamani

// of The Managing Director Vs Thangamani

// of The Managing Director Vs R.Ramkumar