Dismissed

The Branch Manager v. Ramesh

Madras HC15 Dec 2022CRP/2752/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed 13 Civil Revision Petitions filed by an insurance company against a Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal order. The Court found no infirmity in the Tribunal's award of meager compensation, noting the petitioner's absence and the conclusive medical evidence.

What did the court decide?

Civil Revision Petitions were dismissed and the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal judgment was confirmed.

The Branch Manager Vs Ramesh — Motor Accident Claims | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

C.R.P.Nos.2752 to 2763 & 3461 of 2009

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 15.12.2022

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN

¶6

C.R.P.Nos.2752 to 2763 & 3461 of 2009 and M.P.Nos.1 to 1 of 2009 (12 Nos)

¶7

C.P.R.No.2752 of 2009 :-

¶8

The Branch Manager, The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., East Cost Chambers, I Floor, 92, G.N. Chetty Road, Chennai. ... Petitioner

¶9

Vs.

¶10

Ramesh

¶11

P.Shanmugam 3. A.Palanisamy ... Respondents

¶12

Prayer :- Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, against the judgment and decree made in MACT.O.P.No.226 of 2006 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court No.V) Coimbatore at Tirupur, dated 30.07.2008.

¶13

Page 1 of 6

¶14

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

¶15

C.R.P.Nos.2752 to 2763 & 3461 of 2009

¶16

COMMON ORDER

¶17

These Civil Revision Petitions have been filed as against the judgment and decree dated 30.07.2008 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Fast Track Court No.V, Coimbatore at Tirupur, (herein after referred to as “the Tribunal”) in M.A.C.T.O.P.Nos.226, 227, 228, 230, 231, 233, 235, 236, 238, 239, 240, 241 & 477 of 2006, thereby directing the petitioner/insurance company to pay compensation to the respondents/claimants.

¶18

It is seen from the records that on 27.01.2006 at about 7.45

¶19

hours, the respondents traveled in a van bearing registration No.TN29M8770 and the driver of the van had driven the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner due to which the vehicle was capsized. In the said accident, all the respondents sustained injuries and hence they filed claim petitions as against the petitioner and two others before the Tribunal.

¶20

On the side of the respondents, they examined P.W.1 to P.W16

¶21

and marked documents in Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.28. On the side of the petitioner,

¶22

Page 2 of 6

¶23

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

¶24

C.R.P.Nos.2752 to 2763 & 3461 of 2009

¶25

they examined R.W.1 and marked document in Ex.B.1. On a perusal of oral and documentary evidences, the Tribunal awarded compensation to the tune

¶26

of Rs.2,000/- to Rs.6,500/- to the respective respondents/claimants. Aggrieved by the same the petitioner viz., insurance company filed these present Civil Revision Petitions.

¶27

On a perusal of the order passed by the Tribunal, all the respondents proved their case by let in evidence and after due trial the compensation was ordered in favour of claimants. It is also proved that only because of the rash and negligence driving of the driver, the accident had occurred and due to which all the claimants sustained injuries. The doctor, who treated the claimants was examined as P.W.15 and he categorically deposed that all the claimants had suffered injuries on their entire body. Further, these revision petitions are of the year 2009 and for the past 13 years, they are pending without taking any steps to list the case. Today also no one is present for the petitioner. That apart, the compensation was very meager amount and this Court finds no infirmity or illegality in the order passed by the Tribunal.

¶28

Page 3 of 6

¶29

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

¶30

C.R.P.Nos.2752 to 2763 & 3461 of 2009

¶31

Accordingly, the judgment and decree dated 30.07.2008 passed

¶32

by the learned Additional District Judge, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Fast Track Court No.V, Coimbatore at Tirupur, in M.A.C.T.O.P.Nos. 226, 227, 228, 230, 231, 233, 235, 236, 238, 239, 240, 241 & 477 of 2006, is hereby confirmed.

¶33

Accordingly, all the Civil Revision Petitions are dismissed.

¶34

Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶35

15.12.2022

¶36

Internet : Yes Index : Yes/No Speaking order/Non-speaking order

¶37

rts

¶38

Page 4 of 6

¶39

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

¶40

C.R.P.Nos.2752 to 2763 & 3461 of 2009

¶41

¶42

The Additional District Judge, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Fast Track Court No.V, Coimbatore

¶43

Page 5 of 6

¶44

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

¶45

C.R.P.Nos.2752 to 2763 & 3461 of 2009

¶46

G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.

¶47

rts

¶48

C.R.P.Nos.2752 to 2763 & 3461 of 2009 and M.P.Nos.1 to 1 of 2009 (12 Nos)

¶49

15.12.2022

¶50

Page 6 of 6

¶51

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

The Branch Manager v. Ramesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Branch Manager v. Ramesh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

V.Paranthaman Vs M/S.Lazar Enterprises

Manimaran Vs C.Shaheena Kouser

J.Balachandran Vs J.Rajagopalan

Sarangapani(Died) Vs Dhanraj

Director of Land Reforms, Vs Land Tribunal

Gnanasekar Vs Nithyakalyani