Dismissed

Padmanabhan v. Balakrishnan

Madras HC9 Sept 2023CMA/621/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

National Lok Adalat settled Civil Miscellaneous Appeal between claimant and insurance firms. Tribunal earlier awarded Rs. 40,000. Parties agreed to additional Rs. 1.50 lakhs. Appeal dismissed as Civil Miscellaneous Appeal disposed via withdrawal of award and additional sum.

What did the court decide?

The 2nd respondent/Insurance Company to pay additional Rs. 1,50,000 within 4 weeks. Claimant to withdraw Tribunal award amount. Appeal disposed of.

Padmanabhan Vs Balakrishnan — Motor Accident Claims | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

HIGH COURT LEGAL SERVICES COMMITTEE, CHENNAI

¶2

National Lok Adalat organised by the High Court Legal Services Committee

¶3

Saturday, the 09^th day of September, 2023

¶4

NATIONAL LOK ADALAT AWARD

¶5

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

¶6

Presided over by

¶7

The Hon'ble Mr.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN

¶8

AND

¶9

Members

¶10

Mr.G.Dharmaraj, District Judge (Retd.) Mr.C.K.Chandrasekkar, Advocate

¶11

C.M.A.No.621 of 2020

¶12

(Against the award and decree passed on 09.09.2019 made in M.C.O.P.No.175 of 2013 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, II Additional District Court, Tiruvallur at Poonamalle).

Padmanaban

S/o.Devaraj

...Appellant

Vs.

Balakrishnan

¶18

The Reliance General Insurance Company

¶19

18^th Main Road, Anna Nagar, Near GRT Showroom, Chennai -40

¶20

3.SKLS Lorry Services MIC 44, APIIC Complex, Association Hall Road, Auto Nagar, Vijayawada, Andhra Pradesh State.

¶21

4.L T Insurance Company

¶22

No.180, Kodambakkam High Road,

¶23

Nugambakkam, Chennai – 34

¶24

(R1 and R3 remained exparte before the Tribunal)

¶25

.. Respondents

¶26

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

¶27

This case came up for settlement before the National Lok Adalat. Both the parties are present. The learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. K. Varadhakamaraj and the learned counsel for the 2^nd respondent Mr. S. Arunkumar are present. No appearance for the fourth respondent. After mutual discussion, negotiation, mediation and conciliation between both parties, they arrived at a compromise to settle the matter as follows:

¶28

TERMS OF SETTLEMENT

¶29

Both the parties and their respective counsel are present.

¶30

2.The instant appeal has been preferred by the claimant seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. The Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs.40,000/- @ 7.5.% p.a. The 2^nd respondent had deposited the said sum with accrued interest before the Tribunal.

¶31

3.Parties have now agreed for a settlement, by which the 2^nd respondent/Insurance Company has agreed to pay an additional sum of Rs.1,50,000/- (Rupees One lakh and fifty thousand only) in full quit to the claimant, within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On such deposit, the claimant shall be entitled to withdraw the award amount determined by the Tribunal along with the additional amount now agreed by the parties.

¶32

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

¶33

4.The Tribunal is directed to follow the usual mode of payment on proper identification of the parties, concerned, in accordance with the terms of the award, without insisting on any formal permission petition. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is disposed of accordingly.

¶34

Padmanabhan

¶35

Counsel for the Appellant

¶36

The Manager Reliance General Insurance Company Limited Rai's Tower, Plot No.2054, II Avenue Anna Nagar, Chennai 600 040

¶37

Counsel for the 2^nd Respondent

¶38

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

¶39

The Court fee paid shall be refunded to the parties in the manner provided under 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

¶45

Copy to

¶46

1.The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,

¶47

II Additional District Court, Tiruvallur at Poonamallee.

¶48

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

¶49

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

¶50

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

¶51

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

SUNDER MOHAN.,J.

ay/dk

C.M.A.No.621 of 2020

Dated: 09.09.2023

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

Padmanabhan v. Balakrishnan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Padmanabhan v. Balakrishnan

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

G.Senthilkumar Vs P.Dom

Dhanam (Mother of the Deceased) Vs Union of India Owning Southern Railways

Jeeva Vs Dean Jones

Amudha Vs S.Satheeswaran

Praveen Kumar Vs Balakrishnan

D.Sindhu Vs a.Suresh