A. Kumar v. S. Padmapriya
Case brief
What is this about?
The Single Judge allowed a petition in the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal for enhancement of compensation, dismissing the first respondent's presence as necessary and limiting future interest entitlement for the appellant.
What did the court decide?
Petition allowed; notice to first respondent not necessary; interest to commence from appeal filing date.
What the court decided
C.M.P.No.5736 of 2016 in C.M.A.SR.No.3187 of 2015
N.SESHASAYEE, J.
First respondent, owner of the vehicle remained ex parte before the Tribunal. Since the claimant seeks enhancement of compensation, this Court considers that notice to the first respondent is not necessary.
2.Ms.A.Salomi, 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.3187 of 2015, if the papers are otherwise in order.
12.12.2023
Anu
1/1
Parties & counsel
- respondent
First respondent
- respondent
Second respondent
- appellant
Appellant
Coram
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court