Allowed

Branch Manager v. Minor.Vinitha

Madras HC15 Oct 2024CMP(MD)/4209/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Insurance company sought restoration of its workmen's compensation appeal dismissed in default as against respondents 5 and 7. After paper publication and hearing counsel for the petitioner and respondents 1 to 3, the court allowed the petition, restoring the appeal.

What did the court decide?

Dismissal order dated 15.12.2017 in C.M.A.No.1911 of 2013 set aside; appeal restored as against respondents 5 and 7.

Branch Manager Vs Minor.Vinitha — Motor Accident Claims | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

CMP(MD) No.4209 of 2024

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Civil Appellate Jurisdiction )

¶3

Tuesday, the Fifteenth day of October Two Thousand and Twenty Four

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

The Hon`ble Mr.Justice SUNDER MOHAN

¶6

C.M.P(MD)No.4209 of 2024 in C.M.A.No.1911 of 2013

¶7

BRANCH MANAGER UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, KUMBAKONAM.

¶8

... PETITIONER/APPELLANT

¶9

¶10

1 MINOR.VINITHA

¶11

2 MINOR.SUNDARAMURTHY

¶12

MINOR RESPONDENTS 1 AND 2 REPRESENTED THROUGH THEIR MOTHER AND GUARDIAN, 3RD RESPONDENT MRS.GOVINTHAMMAL.

¶13

3 GOVINTHAMMAL

¶14

4 VIMALA

¶15

5 PALANICHAMY

¶16

6 THE COMMISSIONER THANJAVUR MUNICIPALTY, THANJAVUR.

¶17

7 BASKAR

¶18

... RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS

¶19

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

¶20

1/3

¶21

CMP(MD) No.4209 of 2024

¶22

Petition filed praying that in the circumstances stated therein and in the affidavit filed therewith the High Court may be pleased to set aside the dismissal order dated 15.12.2017 in C.M.A.No.1911 of 2013 and restore the appeal as against the respondents nos. 5 and 7 and render justice.

¶23

PRAYER IN C.M.A.No.1911 of 2013:

¶24

To set aside the order dted 12.01.2011 of the Deputy Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation, Trichy passed in W.C.No.58/2010 and allow this Appeal with costs.

¶25

ORDER : This petition coming up for orders on this day, upon perusing the petition and the affidavit filed in support thereof and upon hearing the arguments of C.JAWAHAR RAVINDRAN, Advocate for the petitioner and of MR.G.KANDHAVADIVELAN, Advocate on behalf of the Respondents 1 to 3 and MR.S.PAKALAVAN, Advocate for the 6^th Respondent and not appeared for the respondents 4,5,7 either in person or through by an advocate, the court made the following order:-

¶26

This petition is filed to set aside the dismissal order dated 15.12.2017 in CMA.No.1911 of 2013.

¶27

Though notice has been served on the 4^th respondent, none entered appearance. As per the order dated 11.09.2024, paper publication has been effected to the respondents 5 to 7. There is no representation for R5 to R7.

¶28

3.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 3.

¶29

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

¶30

2/3

¶31

CMP(MD) No.4209 of 2024

¶32

Being satisfied with the reasons stated in the affidavit filed in support of this petition, this petition is allowed.

¶33

sd/15/10/2024

¶34

/ TRUE COPY /

¶35

/10/2024 Sub-Assistant Registrar (CS-I/II/III/IV) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.

¶36

¶37

¶38

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER FOR WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION, TRICHY

¶39

ORDER IN C.M.P(MD)No.4209 of 2024 in C.M.A.No.1911 of 2013 Date :15/10/2024

¶40

RK/JGB (28/10/2024) 3P / 2C

¶41

Madurai Bench of Madras High Court is issuing certified copies in this format from 17/07/2023

¶42

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

¶43

3/3

Branch Manager v. Minor.Vinitha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Branch Manager v. Minor.Vinitha

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

The United India Insurance Co. Vs Pappukannu

Icici Lombard General Insurance Company Limited, Vs R.Nehru

The Branch Manager Vs Andichiammal

S.Pazhaniappan Vs S.Kannan

The Divisional Manager Vs M.Shanthi

The Branch Manager, Vs Arasiya Begum