Allowed

Ganesapandian, v. Balamurugan

Madras HC13 Feb 2024CMA(MD)/182/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madras High Court allowed a Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The Tribunal's order was set aside, and the case was remanded for a new trial to permit the appellant to examine the driver and present additional evidence.

What did the court decide?

Civil Miscellaneous Appeal allowed; C.M.P.(MD)Nos. 10501 of 2023 allowed and 1889 of 2023 closed; case remanded to the Tribunal for de novo trial.

Ganesapandian, Vs Balamurugan — Execution and Attachment | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

C.M.A(MD)No.182 of 2023

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 13.02.2024

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.SRIMATHY

¶6

C.M.A(MD)No.182 of 2023 and

¶7

C.M.P.(MD)Nos.1889 and 10501 of 2022

¶8

1.Ganaespandian 2.Vigneswaran ... Appellants

¶9

Vs.

¶10

Balamurugan ... Respondent

¶11

PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988, against the order passed in M.C.O.P.No.101 of 2018, dated 29.11.2022, on the file of the Learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Subordinate Judge, Aruppukottai.

¶12

For Appellants : Mr.C.M.Arumugam For Respondent : Mr.A.Karthik *****

¶13

JUDGEMENT

¶14

The owner of the vehicle has preferred this appeal.

¶15

The contention of the appellant is that three persons were travelling in

¶16

the two-wheeler and all the three persons were under the influence of alcohol. It

¶17

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

¶18

1/4

¶19

C.M.A(MD)No.182 of 2023

¶20

is seen before the Tribunal the owner of the vehicle had remained exparte. Hence

¶21

the Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that in order to prove the case the appellant ought to examine the Driver. Further while conducting the case before the Tribunal, the parties had failed to examine the Driver. Hence, the appellant has preferred a petition in C.M.P.(MD)No.10501 of 2023 to permit the appellant to examine himself. Since the appellant is seeking an opportunity to reconduct the case before the Tribunal, to examine the parties, it is necessary to remand the case back to the Tribunal for conducting denova trial. The order passed by the Tribunal is set aside and the case is remitted back to the Tribunal. The parties are at liberty to file additional evidence, if so advised and also permitted to examine witness including the Driver. The Tribunal shall complete the proceedings within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶22

Therefore, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed, C.M.P.(MD)No. 10501 of 2023 is allowed and C.M.P.(MD)No.1889 of 2023 is closed. No costs.

¶23

13.02.2024

¶24

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

¶25

Tmg

¶26

2/4

¶27

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

¶28

C.M.A(MD)No.182 of 2023

¶29

¶30

1.Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/ Subordinate Judge, Aruppukottai.

¶31

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

¶32

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

¶33

3/4

¶34

C.M.A(MD)No.182 of 2023

¶35

S.SRIMATHY, J.

¶36

Tmg

¶37

C.M.A(MD)No.182 of 2023

¶38

13.02.2024

¶39

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

¶40

4/4

Ganesapandian, v. Balamurugan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ganesapandian, v. Balamurugan

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

Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Vs Arasangam

Packiyaraj Vs Balakrishnan

Chengan (Died and Exonerated), C. Veeramani, Vs C.Kannan

P.Balakrishnan Vs Barathi

Balasubramanian, Vs R.Chandra

Paramasivam Vs Vivek