Manikandan v. a. Nagarasu
Case brief
What is this about?
This judgment allows a petition to enhance compensation in a motor accident case. The court held that notice to the vehicle owner was unnecessary as the insurance company was present.
What did the court decide?
Petition stands allowed; Registry directed to number the appeal if papers are in order.
What the court decided
C.M.P.No.14141 of 2016 in C.M.A.SR.No.26889 of 2016
N.SESHASAYEE, J.
First respondent, owner of the vehicle remained ex parte before the Tribunal. Since the claimant seeks enhancement of compensation in the presence of the second respondent / insurance company, this Court considers that notice to the first respondent is not necessary.
2.Ms.I.Malar, learned counsel takes notice for the second respondent.
3.Having satisfied with the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit filed in support of this petition, this petition stands allowed. However, in the eventuality of the appellant succeeding in the appeal, he would be entitled to interest only from the date on which the appeal is taken on record by the Registry.
4.The Registry is directed to number the above C.M.A.SR.No.26889 of 2016, if the papers are otherwise in order.
14.12.2023
Anu
1/1
Issues for consideration
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the petition for enhancement of compensation, filed in the presence of the insurance company without the owner, stands allowed.
Parties & counsel
- respondent
First respondent
- respondent
Second respondent
Coram
N.Seshasayee
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court