Allowed

R. Kalaiselvan v. Thiruselvam

Madras HC18 Apr 2023CMP/437/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court condoned a significant delay in filing an appeal against an MACT award. The court allowed the petition on the condition that the appellants are not entitled to interest for the delayed period, even though no deposit had been made by the vehicle owner. No costs were awarded.

What did the court decide?

Petition allowed subject to waiver of interest for the delay period; interest to be awarded from the date of admission of the appeal. No costs.

R. Kalaiselvan Vs Thiruselvam — Motor Accident Claims | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

C.M.P.No.437 of 2022 in C.M.A.SR.146117 of 2018

¶2

Reserved on Pronounced on 02.03.2023 18.04.2023

¶3

C.M.P.No.437 of 2022 in C.M.A.SR.146117 of 2018

¶4

RMT.TEEKAA RAMAN,J.,

¶5

This petition is filed to condone the delay of 1431 days in filing the appeal against the award dated 17.10.2014 made in M.C.O.P.No.3203 of 2011 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (II Small Causes Court), Chennai.

¶6

The petitioners are the claim petitioners in M.C.O.P.No.3203 of 2011 claiming compensation. After trial, the tribunal has held that since on the death of the accident, the driver of the first respondent vehicle did not own a valid driving license and hence dismissed the M.C.O.P against the Insurance Company and directed the owner of the vehicle/first respondent to pay the compensation.

¶7

The learned counsel for the petitioner drew my attention to the fact

¶8

that the driving license of the first respondent driver was valid upto

¶9

1/4

¶10

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

¶11

C.M.P.No.437 of 2022 in C.M.A.SR.146117 of 2018

¶12

03.03.2009 and subsequently renewed on 29.10.2011. The accident took place on 14.07.2010 and on the date of the accident, the driver of the first respondent vehicle was driving the vehicle without a valid driving license. However, since he had a license and the same was not renewed, the learned counsel prayed for pay and recovery to be ordered.

¶13

The learned counsel for the Insurance Company could contend that the claim against the insurance company is already dismissed and there is no plausible explanation for the huge delay.

¶14

I am not expressing any opinion as to whether the claim petitioners are entitled to pay and recovery as projected. However, taking note of the fact that the owner of the vehicle has not yet deposited the amount and there are arguable points on the merits of the claim petitioners and also since it is a beneficial legislation, I am inclined to allow the petition on condition that the petitioners/appellants are not entitled for interest for the delay period and they are entitled to the interest from the date of admission of C.M.A only.

¶15

2/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶16

C.M.P.No.437 of 2022 in C.M.A.SR.146117 of 2018

¶17

With these observations, this Civil Miscellaneous Petition is allowed.

No costs.

18.04.2023

nvi

Note: The Registry is directed to number the main appeal, if it is otherwise in order.

¶22

3/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶23

C.M.P.No.437 of 2022 in C.M.A.SR.146117 of 2018

¶24

RMT.TEEKAA RAMAN,J.,

¶25

nvi

¶26

Pre-Delivery order in C.M.P.No.437 of 2022 in C.M.A.SR.146117 of 2018

¶27

18.04.2023

¶28

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

R. Kalaiselvan v. Thiruselvam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R. Kalaiselvan v. Thiruselvam

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

C.Rajendran Vs State rep. by

Senthil Vs Sudhagar

Visalakshi Vs Nirmal Dasan

Rajan Vs the Executive Magistrate

Iffco-Tokio General Insurance Company Limited Vs Amutha

D.Sherfunnisa Begam Vs T.Karuppusamy