Allowed

P.Parvathi v. J.Banupriya

Madras HC1 Nov 2023CMA(MD)/465/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This appeal challenged the apportionment of a motor accident compensation award between the deceased's mother and wife. The High Court upheld the tribunal's calculation, confirming the mother's entitlement to Rs.6,00,000/- and the wife to Rs.10,07,000/-, and allowed the appeal. No order as to costs.

What did the court decide?

The appeal is allowed with no order as to costs and the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

P.Parvathi Vs J.Banupriya — Motor Accident Claims | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

C.M.A.(MD)No.465 of 2018

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED : 01.11.2023

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE L.VICTORIA GOWRI

¶6

C.M.A.(MD)No.465 of 2018

¶7

and

¶8

C.M.P.(MD)No.5559 of 2018

P.Parvathi

... Appellant

Vs.

1.J.Banupriya

2.K.Babu

3.HDFC ERGO General Insurance Company Ltd., 6^th Floor, Leela Business Park, Mumbai-400 59. ... Respondents

¶15

PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, to set aside the judgment and decree dated 12.03.2018 passed in M.C.O.P.No.324 of 2014 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Cum Sub-Court, Kulithalai.

¶16

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

¶17

C.M.A.(MD)No.465 of 2018

¶18

For Appellant : Mr.N.Sudhagar Nagaraj For R-1 & R-2 : No appearance For R-3 : Mr.V.Sakthivel

¶19

JUDGMENT

¶20

The present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed, to set aside the judgment and decree dated 12.03.2018 passed in M.C.O.P.No.324 of 2014 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Cum Sub-Court, Kulithalai.

¶21

2.Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant, the learned Counsel for the third respondent and perused the materials available on record.

¶22

The learned Counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that the Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs.16,07,000/- (Rupees Sixteen Lakhs and Seven Thousand only) as compensation passed in

¶23

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

¶24

C.M.A.(MD)No.465 of 2018

¶25

M.C.O.P.No.324 of 2014, vide judgment and decree, dated 12.03.2018. The said amount was apportioned between the mother of the deceased and the wife of the deceased. The mother was awarded only an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs only) and the remaining amount was awarded to the wife of the deceased. Hence, the apportionment of share from the total amount to a tune of an additional amount of Rs.3,00,000/(Rupees Three Lakhs only), the mother has preferred an appeal.

¶26

I am of the considered view that the mother is entitled to the said apportionment. In view of the same, the apportionment of an additional amount of Rs.3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs only) is hereby confirmed. The Insurance Company has already deposited the entire amount to the credit of account of the Tribunal. Hence, the claimants are permitted to withdraw the respective award amount from the Trial Court. The wife is entitled to an amount of Rs.10,07,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs and Seven Thousand only) and the mother is entiled to an amount of Rs.6,00,000/(Rupees Six Lakhs only).

¶27

3/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶28

C.M.A.(MD)No.465 of 2018

¶29

With these observations and directions, this Civil Miscellaneous

¶30

Appeal is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.

¶31

01.11.2023

¶32

NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes Sml

¶33

¶34

The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Cum Sub-Court, Kulithalai.

¶35

Copy to

¶36

The Section Officer, Vernacular Records, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

¶37

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

¶38

C.M.A.(MD)No.465 of 2018

¶39

L.VICTORIA GOWRI, J.,

¶40

Sml

¶41

C.M.A.(MD)No.465 of 2018

¶42

01.11.2023

¶43

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

P.Parvathi v. J.Banupriya

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.Parvathi v. J.Banupriya

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

Muthusamy, Vs 1. Meenakshi Sundaram (Died), 2. Valliammal

S.Chandrasekar, Vs a.Lakshmi

Jothiammal(Died) Vs Kathija Beevi

The Secretary Vs The Director of Elementary Education

Sharmila Banu.M Vs the Secretary to the Government

Jm Financial Asset Reconstruction Vs Chinnamalar Plantation Pvt. Ltd.